state-federal vr director perceptions of program ... · abilities to transform their agencies, in...
TRANSCRIPT
STATE-FEDERAL VR DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM CHALLENGES,
NEEDS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
By
Susan G. Sherman
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Rehabilitation Counselor Education - Doctor of Philosophy
2015
ABSTRACT
STATE-FEDERAL VR DIRECTOR PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRAM CHALLENGES,
NEEDS, AND THE FUTURE OF THE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
By
Susan G. Sherman
McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the challenge is to ensure
continuity in our government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the
unique needs of the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which
public policies are carried out. This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the
state-federal VR program from the director’s perspective and to determine how these directors
see the future of the public VR program. The study provides an in-depth examination of the
research question “How do state-federal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation
program, and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their agencies’
success in light of the changes occurring in the field?” The 12 participants identified for
inclusion in this study were state-federal VR directors leading higher-functioning VR agencies,
based on three years of RSA 911 data from combined or general VR agencies in the continental
United States.
The results indicate that the state-federal VR directors interviewed are collaborating with
workforce partners, school systems and other partners to meet the mandates of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Issues and concerns related to agency implementation
of WIOA were examined. Creating a better world for people with disabilities was examined in
terms of agency actions and policies. VR directors’ thoughts on their own training needs, and
that of their staff, were shared.
The findings from this study may be able to assist stakeholders in understanding and
developing resources and supports that state-federal VR directors believe are needed in order to
successfully operate public VR programs into the future.
Copyright by
SUSAN G. SHERMAN
2015
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to take this opportunity to thank the faculty and staff of the MSU Rehabilitation
Counseling program and my committee members, Dr. Michael J. Leahy, Dr. John Kosciulek, Dr.
Connie Sung and Dr. Avner Segall, for their patience, guidance and for the many opportunities
presented to me during my time at Michigan State University. I especially want to thank my
advisor, Dr. Michael J. Leahy, for his wisdom, guidance, and support. I will be forever grateful
for the opportunities he has provided to me and for his encouragement and steadfast support. He
has shown me the importance of scholarship and of sharing knowledge with others to create a
better world for people with disabilities.
I would also like to thank Dr. Leahy and the entire research team, for allowing me to
participate and contribute to the literature through the RRTC-EBP-VR NIDRR grant. I wish to
acknowledge my research assistant peers, Roy Del Valle and Cayte Anderson, for their support
and never-ending encouragement.
I have met so many people during these past few years, many of whom I have met
through the Big 3 events coordinated by MSU, Iowa and Penn State faculty. Many of these
individuals have become close friends and colleagues, and I thank them for all they have done in
enabling me to succeed in my doctoral studies. I would also like to thank my friends and
colleagues who encouraged me to pursue this degree.
Most of all, I would like to thank my family for their enduring support of me during these
years in Michigan. To my daughter, Sarah, I have been amazed at the lovely young woman you
have become during our time here. To my wife, Ann, words alone cannot express my gratitude
for all your support and sacrifice during these last few years. I am truly blessed and I shall be
vi
forever grateful to you and for this life we have made together. And, lastly, I would like to thank
my mother, Lori Sherman, who I know is watching over me and would have been extremely
proud of this achievement.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... xii
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of Problem .......................................................................................................... 4 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................................. 5
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 8 Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 8 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 9
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 14
The State-Federal Rehabilitation Program and Related Legislation................................. 14
Growth of Vocational Rehabilitation Programs ............................................................... 14 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Amendments ........................................................... 15
The Workforce Investment Act and Ticket to Work ........................................................ 16 Twenty-First Century Legislation ..................................................................................... 17 The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.............................................................. 18
Leadership of State-Federal Rehabilitation Programs ...................................................... 20 Evidence-Based Practices ................................................................................................. 22
Culture............................................................................................................................... 24 Leadership, Culture and the Learning Organization ......................................................... 25
The Culture of Leadership ................................................................................................ 28 Leadership in Times of Change ........................................................................................ 31
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 3 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 33
Research Design................................................................................................................ 34 Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 35 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 37 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 39
Role of the Researcher ...................................................................................................... 41
Limitations of Study ......................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 4 Results .......................................................................................................................... 43
Participant Demographics ................................................................................................. 43
viii
Titles of state-federal directors ............................................................................. 43 Type of state-federal VR agency .......................................................................... 43 Years in current position ....................................................................................... 44 Previous position titles .......................................................................................... 44
State departmental locations ................................................................................. 45 Designated state unit locations.............................................................................. 45 Years with current VR agency .............................................................................. 46 Years in public rehabilitation ................................................................................ 46 Educational backgrounds and degrees .................................................................. 47
Licenses or certification held ................................................................................ 47 Themes and Categories ..................................................................................................... 48
Future of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program ............................................................. 48 Perspectives of the VR program in the next decade ............................................. 48 Creating VR’s future ............................................................................................. 49 State director concerns about the future................................................................ 50
Rehabilitation Legislation ................................................................................................. 51 Improving the service delivery system for PWD in light of WIOA ..................... 51
Changes from WIOA affecting state-federal VR agencies ................................... 52 Agency Actions ................................................................................................................. 53
Maintaining the values of the rehabilitation process ............................................ 53
Actions by state-federal VR director and resources needed ................................. 53
Resources needed to maintain and increase levels of success .............................. 54 Societal Advancements for People with Disabilities ........................................................ 55
Positioning the agency to create a better world for people with disabilities ........ 55
Using the director position to create a better world for people with disabilities .. 56 State Director Activities .................................................................................................... 57
Resources needed to be a successful state director ............................................... 57 Activities for agency success ................................................................................ 58 State-federal VR director training and learning communities .............................. 59
Decision-making over personnel and finances ..................................................... 59 Agency Policies ................................................................................................................ 59
Upholding the letter and the spirit of the law ....................................................... 59
Factors related to development of financial policies ............................................ 60 Efforts around localizing decision-making ........................................................... 60
Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................ 61
Attitudes, knowledge, skills and abilities needed by staff .................................... 61 Certification of VR counselors ............................................................................. 62 Support and funding for training and personnel development.............................. 62
Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 64
Vision of the Future under WIOA .................................................................................... 64 Customer Service .................................................................................................. 66
Innovation and Service Design ............................................................................. 68 Systems Integration and High-Quality Staffing .................................................... 70
Implications for State-Federal VR Directors .................................................................... 73 Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators ....................................................... 75
ix
Implications for Policymakers and Funders ..................................................................... 77 Implications for Rehabilitation Researchers ..................................................................... 79 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................. 80 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 81
Conceptual Framework with Findings .............................................................................. 84
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 86
Appendix A. Institutional Review Boards Approval ......................................................... 87
Appendix B. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study .......................................................... 89
Appendix C. CSAVR Research Endorsement ................................................................... 90
Appendix D. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors ..................................... 91
Appendix E. Research Consent Form ............................................................................... 92
Appendix F. Semi-Structured Interview Guide ................................................................. 94
Appendix G. Zoom Invitation ............................................................................................ 97
Appendix H. RSA-TAC-15-01 .......................................................................................... 98
Appendix I. 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators .............................................. 111
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 114
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Higher-Performing State-Federal VR Agencies by Federal Fiscal Year ........................ 40
Table 2. States by Program Type .................................................................................................. 44
Table 3. 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators ................................................................. 111
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Competing Values Framework (CVF) ............................................................................ 6
Figure 2. Competing Values Framework: Organizational Effectiveness (Quinn, 1984) ................ 7
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Competing Values Map (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983) .................................................. 27
Figure 5. Visual Model for Qualitative Research Design ............................................................. 37
Figure 6. Years in Position by State.............................................................................................. 44
Figure 7. Designated State Agencies Distribution ........................................................................ 45
Figure 8. Years with Current Agency ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 9. Years in Public Rehabilitation ....................................................................................... 47
Figure 10. Conceptual Framework with Findings ........................................................................ 85
Figure 11. Institutional Review Board Online Form .................................................................... 87
Figure 12. IRB Approval Letter Email ......................................................................................... 88
Figure 13. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study Email .............................................................. 89
Figure 14. CSAVR Research Endorsement .................................................................................. 90
Figure 15. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors .................................................... 91
Figure 16. Zoom Meeting Invitation ............................................................................................. 97
xii
KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
AT Assistive Technology
COLA Cost of Living Adjustment
CPA Certified Public Accountant
CRC Certified Rehabilitation Counselor
CSAVR Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
CVF Competing Values Framework
DSA Designated State Agency
DSU Designated State Unit
EBP Evidence-Based Practices
FFY Federal Fiscal Year
FTE Full-Time Equivalent
HELP Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
HHS Health & Human Services
IRB Institutional Review Board
ICI Institute for Community Inclusion
IRI Institute on Rehabilitation Issues
JDVRTAC Job-Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center
LPC Licensed Professional Counselor
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCSAB National Council of State Agencies for the Blind
xiii
NIDILRR National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and
Rehabilitation Research
NIDRR National Institute on Disability-Related Research
PETS Pre-employment Transition Services
PWD Person with a disability
QA Quality Assurance
RCEP Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program
RSA-TAC-15-01 Technical Assistance Circular
RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration
SRC State Rehabilitation Council
TA Technical Assistance
TACE Technical Assistance and Continuing Education
VR Vocational Rehabilitation
WIA Workforce Investment Act
WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Federal legislation has supported the public vocational rehabilitation (VR) program for
over 90 years (McFarlane, Schroeder, Enriquez & Dew, 2011). The focus of this legislation has
been to enable state-federal vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to provide services that
support people with disabilities to obtain and maintain employment and increase independence.
While the state-federal VR programs have “been relatively successful at helping people with
disabilities obtain and maintain employment, this federal disability program is facing some
formidable challenges” (Leahy, Chan & Lui, 2014, p. 84). The strength of the state-federal
program today is its focus on policies, mandates and structures designed to identify and meet the
needs of the individual with disabilities.
The state-federal VR program, in assisting approximately one million individuals with
disabilities with independent living and career goals, spends about three billion dollars annually
according to Leahy et al., 2014. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) has found
that after receiving VR services about half the individuals served were able to obtain
employment in integrated settings. Accountability by VR stakeholders for fund expenditures is
increasing. State VR directors are responsible, as outlined in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, for both the funds they expend and the outcomes their agencies produce.
Understanding how state-federal VR directors perceive their resource needs and their own
abilities to transform their agencies, in order to improve employment outcomes, may provide
insights into how to best support these directors in improving and sustaining VR services.
McFarlane et al. noted that the public policy challenge is to balance person-centric principles
while creating policies and structures to meet organizational mandates to assist the consumer.
2
Federal regulations provide the foundation for implementing the state-federal VR policies and
services. For most of its history, the state-federal VR program received bipartisan support and
this has contributed to longevity of the program. Since the program’s inception, the VR
program’s framework of policy mandates has required commitments and resources at both the
state and federal levels and created a system that should be consistent throughout the United
States (McFarlane et al., 2011).
McFarlane et al. believe that in order to ensure that public policies are both person-
centric and system-centric constant thoughtful consideration, planning and implementation by
policymakers, administrators, employers, providers and the person with a disability that
endeavors to enter or return to the job market is required. An analysis of the most recent version
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which is now Title IV of Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA), expands the requirements of the Designated State Unit (DSU) to
require that there be a full-time VR director who is ultimately responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the state’s VR program. The WIOA gives VR directors sole authority and
responsibility within the Designated State Agency (DSA), under which the DSU is housed, to
expend funds made available under the Act. This language specifically identifies and empowers
the VR director as the decision-maker on expenditure of funds on the program’s behalf. The
State VR Director is the only position specifically outlined in the Act and is responsible for the
staff hired. While VR agency staff titles and positions may vary, the State Director’s position
and responsibilities are clearly outlined in the Act.
Fiscal, legislative and leadership changes at the state and federal levels have, over time,
changed the field of rehabilitation services (McFarlane et al., 2011). According to the 2005
document from the 31st Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (IRI), managing a VR system
3
successfully depends on managing many competing priorities. “Individuals in positions of
leadership are being asked to make many decisions, both large and small, in this rapidly
changing environment” (McFarlane et al., 2011, p. 5). Bitter and Gay (1997) point out that
setting direction with vision, values and creativity requires leadership. Packard (2009) notes that
leadership is an important variable that affects the performance of an organization. The
leadership behavior of an organization creates, either knowingly or unknowingly, the culture of
the organization in which staff operates (Packard, 2009). Rijal (2010) suggests that leadership
facilitating a culture allowing for the creation of a learning organization encourages the
development, acquisition, transformation and dissemination of new knowledge that can foster
innovation leading to evidence-based practices (EBP). Emphasis on the development and
implementation of EBPs is needed to assist state-federal VR directors in demonstrating the
effectiveness of VR service provision by their agencies. Creating cultures that transform
agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff towards innovation appears to be a
critical and necessary step (Sherman et al., 2014).
Shaw, Leahy and Catalano (2006) noted that “challenges to the profession of
rehabilitation counseling have frequently been cited in the rehabilitation counseling literature.”
These researchers reported the results of a Delphi study with a wide variety of leaders in the field
that included leaders of the various professional organizations, accreditation and certification
bodies. The results of this study were classified into “five domains of issues which included:
professional identity and recognition; changes in service delivery systems; education and training
issues; research; and professional association issues” (Shaw et al., 2006, p. 177). The goal of
this study was to provide the profession with guidance in developing agendas and strategies that
will address the critical issues facing the profession.
4
In another recent study, Sherman, Leahy, Del Valle, Anderson, Tansey and Lui (2014)
revealed “organizational practices, culture and structural elements encourage and support the
development of innovative and effective service delivery practices” (Leahy et al., 2014, p. 85).
McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the challenge is to ensure continuity in our
government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the unique needs of
the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which public policies are
carried out. This study proposes to look at state-federal VR directors, those individuals charged
with carrying out the mandates and goals of the state-federal VR program. While the literature
addresses the perspectives of a wide variety of leaders in the field, this study will extend research
in the field by exploring state-federal VR directors’ insights on the future of the VR program and
what these directors believe they need to successfully address the complex and ever-changing
demands on their agencies.
Statement of Problem
“The challenges of vocational rehabilitation have never been more evident, nor the need
for more and better VR services been greater” (McMahon & Chan, 2011, p. 189). State-federal
VR directors have the responsibility to assure that funds, expended by the staff they hire, are
used to support program success for agency clients. Sherman et al. (2014) found there is a clear
link between leadership style and management practice, and these factors have a significant
influence on the adoption of innovation and utilization of evidence-based practices within state-
federal VR agencies. Leaders of successful VR agencies “emphasize the use of outcome-focused
business models by adopting organizational innovations and harnessing advances in information
technologies to deliver outcomes that individuals, communities and society at large value”
(Sherman et al., 2014, p. 151).
5
Given the changes over time to the state VR program, including recent changes brought
about by the recently passed WIOA legislation, this study examines the administration of a state-
federal VR program from the State Director’s perspective that may provide an insider’s point of
view of the challenges and, in turn, the needs of the state-federal VR program. These directors
are uniquely situated to provide insight into the program’s future direction and how state
directors perceive the national program needs to adapt in continuing the provision of quality
services. These insights may provide a roadmap for potential changes that VR agencies and their
stakeholders could undertake over time to improve their agency’s performance outcomes,
especially in light of state budget cuts and the diminishing availability of training dollars.
Purpose of Study
According to Sherman et al. (2014), in order to achieve VR program success in times of
change, leaders should strive to create a culture of adhocracy that supports a learning
organization. Organizational culture is one of the management tools available to leaders of
organizations that can shape employee performance (Giberson et al., 2009; Lincoln, 2010;
Sherman et al., 2014). In an attempt to define organizational culture in relation to organizational
learning, Cameron and Quinn (1999) proposed the Competing Values Framework (CVF).
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) explained CVF in terms of two primary dimensions that include
four major quadrants representing opposite assumptions. Dimension 1 ranges from flexibility
and discretion to stability and control in the organization. Dimension 2 ranges from internal
focus and integration to external focus and differentiation in the organization. The four major
quadrants, as depicted in Figure 1, are defined by these two axes, labeled as clan, market,
hierarchy and adhocracy (Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez &
Sanz-Valle, 2011; Sherman et al., 2014).
6
Source: Cameron and Quinn (1999)
Figure 1. Competing Values Framework (CVF)
Leaders in adhocracy systems value innovation and building partnerships with external
stakeholders. Adhocracy culture is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility or dynamism,
adaptability and change. Decision-making is decentralized and creativity, entrepreneurship and
risk-taking are expected and valued. In this culture, teams are formed around projects and
communication flows up the chain of command. Such a culture promotes survival in an uncertain,
ambiguous and turbulent environment (Lincoln, 2010; Millington & Schultz, 2009; Sanz-Valle et
al., 2011; Sherman et al., 2014). The decisions that state-federal VR directors make, who these
leaders are, and the resources needed to support informed decisions will be the topic of this
dissertation. “Reliance on past experience and expertise will not be sufficient to lead the public
rehabilitation of the future” (McFarlane et al., 2011, p. 11).
Based on the CVF, Quinn in 1984 developed a model to organize the literature on
leadership. From his work, eight categories of leader behavior or roles emerged. Figure 2 shows
how these eight roles fit into his existing framework on organizational effectiveness. Each of the
quadrants reflects core management skills. The upper left quadrant is the human relations model
7
that encourages teamwork, cohesiveness and interpersonal conflict. In the upper right quadrant,
the innovator is creative and encourages adaptation and change, while the broker role is
persuasive, influential and politically astute. The lower right quadrant shows the producer who
is task-oriented and work-focused, encouraging production to accomplish goals. The lower left
quadrant coordinator maintains structure, coordinates staff efforts and attends to housekeeping
issues while monitoring performance and paperwork. While managers are expected to play all of
these roles, effective managers have the ability to perform multiple roles and balance competing
demands (Dennison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995). Executives who exhibit a greater variety of
leadership roles have been found to be more effective than their less effective counterparts
(Dennison, Hooijberg & Quinn, 1995). Leaders who were perceived as more effective by their
staff and others tended to perform leadership functions more frequently than those that were seen
as performing other roles (Hooijberg, 1996).
Figure 2. Competing Values Framework: Organizational Effectiveness (Quinn, 1984)
The purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth examination and discussion of the
findings from a qualitative multiple case study of 13 state-federal VR directors, selected from
8
general and combined agencies in the continental United States, who lead higher-performing
state-federal VR programs. The findings from this study may assist stakeholders in
understanding and developing resources and supports that the state-federal VR directors believe
are needed in order to successfully operate public VR programs into the future. The study may
also help administrators of state-federal VR agencies gain insights that could potentially enhance
the future of the public rehabilitation program.
Research Question
The primary research question that will guide this study is:
How do state-federal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program,
and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their agencies’ success in
light of the changes occurring in the field?
The structured interview guide and research questions have been adapted from questions
in the publication entitled Institute on Rehabilitation Issues (2005) and from questions in the
article by McFarlane, Schroeder & Enriquez (2014).
Conceptual Framework
Figure 3 depicts how funding and expectations flow through legislation to fund state-
federal VR agencies, from various state, federal and private stakeholders, and those agencies’
expectation of accountability for funding and service provision. In order to obtain funding, there
are expectations for accountability that flow to the state-federal VR agency to the VR director,
through whom the organization’s culture can create a learning organization that may enable staff
to provide evidence-based services to agency customers, thereby facilitating the opportunity
(successful) outcomes, which in turn can provide the accountability the funders are expecting for
9
continued financial support of the legislation, enabling VR agencies to continue to provide
services to agency customers.
Legislation (WIOA)
Funding Agencies
(state, federal, private
stakeholders)
VR
Directors
VR
Staff
VR
Services
VR
Clients
Learning Organization
Cu
ltu
reC
ultu
re
Fu
nd
ing
an
d E
xp
ecta
tio
ns
Re
so
urc
es
Acco
un
tab
ility
State and Federal VR Agency
Evidence-Based Practices
Successful
Outcomes
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework
Summary
In resource-limited environments, evidence of efficacy and effectiveness can help leaders
make programmatic funding decisions so agencies can show that the services they provide work
(Brannon, 2010). The state-federal VR program has been continually challenged to demonstrate
the effectiveness of VR services provided to eligible customers. The emphasis on the
development and implementation of EBPs is needed to assist state-federal VR agencies in
demonstrating the effectiveness of VR service provision. Executive leadership sets the tone to
10
create cultures that have the potential to transform agencies into learning organizations that
empower staff towards innovation. Leadership continuity will also become a highly significant
factor in the sustainability of these types of enabling organizational cultures. Leaders of VR
agencies must develop a foundation of EBPs that lead to competitive employment outcomes for
people with disabilities. Today, such practices are in need of metrics that can prove they work.
Finding ways to measure the outcomes of organizational strategies implemented by state-federal
VR directors is necessary to provide the level of empirical evidence of success to all the
stakeholders in the state/federal VR program. Given the variability of outcomes in state-federal
VR programs, the perceptions of state-federal VR directors about the future of VR and the
resources needed to operate their programs successfully is important for the future of the
program and to the various stakeholders of state-federal VR programs. The research conducted
through this study may give those in the field of rehabilitation and VR program stakeholders a
better understanding of what state-federal VR directors, the only position required by the
Rehabilitation Act, believe is necessary to sustain and continue to grow this important public
program.
Definition of Terms
Adhocracy Culture
Organizational culture places importance on flexibility and innovation. Adaptability and
quick reactions to the changing market, competition and external environment are
integral components of corporate strategy in this type of business. Leadership in an
adhocracy culture is demonstrated by entrepreneurship and risk-taking. The emphasis is
always on growth opportunities and employees are encouraged to experiment with new
ideas.
11
Competing Values Framework (CVF)
A model of four distinct culture types, developed by Cameron & Quinn, that include
hierarchy, market, clan and adhocracy cultures.
Designated State Unit (DSU)
The state agency or the bureau, division or other organizational unit within a state agency
that is primarily concerned with the vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other
rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities and that is responsible for the
administration of the VR program of the state agency; or the independent state
commission, board or other agency that has the vocational rehabilitation, or vocational
and other rehabilitation, of individuals with disabilities as its primary function.
Evidence-Based Practices (EBP)
Evidence-based practice refers to the use of research and scientific studies as a base for
determining the best practices in a field.
Federal Indicators
The evaluation standards used to assess each DSU to evaluate a DSU’s performance in
serving individuals with disabilities under the VR program.
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)
Federal year which funding runs from October 1 through September 30 each year.
General and Combined Agencies
State-federal vocational rehabilitation agencies that are inclusive of programs for the
blind (combined) or exclude services to the blind (general).
Higher-Functioning VR Agencies
Designed State Units that within a three-fiscal-year time period achieve at least one six
12
and no less than a five out of the six evaluation standard indicators used to assess
successful performance of state-federal VR programs.
Learning Organization
Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they
truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.
Rehabilitation Act (of 1973, as amended)
Federal legislation that authorizes the formula grant programs of vocational
rehabilitation, supported employment, independent living and client assistance. It also
authorizes a variety of training and service discretionary grants administered by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA)
Federal agency that oversees grant programs that help individuals with physical or mental
disabilities to obtain employment and live more independently through the provision of
such supports as counseling, medical and psychological services, job training and other
individualized services. RSA's major Title I formula grant program provides funds to
state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to provide employment-related services for
individuals with disabilities, giving priority to individuals who are significantly disabled.
State-Federal VR Director
Individual who has the sole authority under the Rehabilitation Act for the state level day-
to-day operations of the vocational rehabilitation program.
13
VR Outcomes
Outcomes, measured by federal indicators, in determining the success of a state-federal
VR program.
Vocational Rehabilitation
Program that provides grants to states to support a wide range of services designed to
help individuals with disabilities prepare for and engage in gainful employment
consistent with their strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities,
interests and informed choice. Eligible individuals are those who have a physical or
mental impairment that results in a substantial impediment to employment, who can
benefit from vocational rehabilitation (VR) services for employment, and who require
VR services. Priority must be given to serving individuals with the most significant
disabilities if a state is unable to serve all eligible individuals.
VR Stakeholders
Individuals, organizations and funding agencies that have an interest in the provision of
vocational rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities.
Workforce Innovation & Opportunities Act (WIOA)
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, now known as Title IV of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunities Act, which was signed into law in 2014 (H.R. 803).
14
Chapter 2
Literature Review
The State-Federal Rehabilitation Program and Related Legislation
The Soldiers Rehabilitation Act in 1918 was the first federal legislation that focused on
veterans returning from World War I with injuries and permanent disabilities. Those disabilities
presented significant barriers to a veteran’s ability to become reemployed back in the civilian
workforce. Rehabilitation programs and services promoted physical recovery and the building of
new work skills in order for those veterans to return to employment. The State-Federal
Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program originated through federal legislation in 1920 with the
Smith-Fess Act (Patterson, Bruyere, Szymanski & Jenkins, 2005; Rubin & Roessler, 2008;
Wright, 1980) and remains over 94 years later the primary public sector provider of VR services
for individuals with significant disabilities in this country. Vocational rehabilitation legislation
has been focused on providing vocational guidance, vocational education, occupational
adjustment and job placement services to individuals with physical disabilities. The Smith-Fess
Act established a funding mechanism of a 50-50 matching of funds from the federal government
as an incentive to states to pass VR laws and create their own public VR agencies (Rubin &
Roessler, 2001).
Growth of Vocational Rehabilitation Programs
The years after World War II saw significant growth of vocational rehabilitation
programs for veterans with disabilities. Although individuals with disabilities were marginalized
in American society at that time, wartime labor shortages created opportunities that allowed
individuals with disabilities to demonstrate their abilities to work and be productive in
mainstream society. Through the passing of the Barden-LaFollette Act in 1943, the United
15
States acknowledged that a variety of groups of people with disabilities, including people with
mental illness, mental retardation and blindness, could benefit from the VR program and
Congress provided additional federal funding for VR programs (Rubin & Roessler, 2008;
Wright, 1980).
The Golden Era of Rehabilitation began in the 1950s, with significant expansion of the
public VR program (Golden, Bruyere, Karpur, Nazarov & VanLooy, 2012; Rubin & Roessler,
2008, p. 32; Rusalem & Malikin, 1976). “Funding quadrupled for public rehabilitation between
1954 and 1965. The share of federal funding increased by 50 percent to $3 for every $2 of state
dollars” (Rubin & Roessler, 2008, p. 33). During this time period, funding expanded for
rehabilitation research, demonstration grants and rehabilitation facility development. These
research and development grants allowed state VR agencies and nonprofit organizations to
explore new areas of knowledge within the rehabilitation field (Rubin & Roessler, 2008).
Federal funding ratios to the 36 state VR agencies continued to increase to a level of 80% to 20%
at this time and allowed facilities and community rehabilitation programs to increase the number
individuals with disabilities served (Rubin & Roessler, 2008).
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Amendments
Landmark legislation, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, retained the 80-20 ratio of federal
to state funding (Rubin & Roessler, 2008) and reaffirmed the rights of individuals with
disabilities. This legislation prioritized services to individuals with severe disabilities. It
encouraged consumer involvement in the VR process and required program evaluation to
measure program outcomes. Over the years, amendments to this legislation encouraged more
research in rehabilitation and reaffirmed the need for training of qualified rehabilitation
counselors through the funding of rehabilitation. Reauthorizations of the Rehabilitation Act, and
16
its implementing regulations, called for expansion of federal funding for further rehabilitation
programs and services, such as independent living centers, and emphasized the serving of
individuals with severe disabilities (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). The Rehabilitation Act
amendments of 1986 promoted community integration for people with disabilities, development
of Client Assistance Programs and rehabilitation technology and engineering, as well as
supported employment (Rubin & Roessler, 2008).
The Workforce Investment Act and Ticket to Work
The 1990s saw consumer choice and the goal of integrated employment in the 1992 and
1998 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Golden et al., 2012). In 1990, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) strengthened the rights of individuals with disabilities to
participate in mainstream society (Rehabilitation Services Administration, 1990). In 1998,
Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, of which the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, became Title IV. The new legislation mandated consolidation and integration
of the country’s Workforce programs into a one-stop delivery system in an effort to improve
service outcomes (Dorrer, 2001; Rubin & Roessler, 2008). Under WIA, the state-federal
vocational rehabilitation programs maintained their independent identities but were expected to
coordinate with other federally funded vocational training programs through cooperative
agreements. In 1999, President Clinton signed into law the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives
Improvement Act (TWWIIA). While this legislation was not officially part of the workforce
investment system, it addressed policy barriers for Social Security (SSI) and Social Security
Disability (SSDI) recipients. It created Employment Networks (ENs) to give consumers a choice
of providers, including the State-Federal VR Program. Payments to VR programs changed from
an entirely cost reimbursement process to programs having a choice when successfully working
17
with SSI or SSDI recipients of either receiving the traditional method of payment or milestone
payments. It also gave consumers the choice of working with VR or another EN organization
(Dorrer, 2001; Golden et al., 2012; Rubin & Roessler, 2008).
Twenty-First Century Legislation
In the 21st century, state-federal vocational rehabilitation agencies “experienced
downward trends across four key performance indicators, including percentages of individuals
with significant disabilities who achieve an employment outcome with earnings; percentages of
individuals receiving SSI/SSDI with an employment outcome with earnings; average earnings of
individuals who receive SSI/SSDI at application; and percentages of transition age youths who
achieve an employment outcome with earnings” (Golden et al., 2012, p. 11).
In July 2008, the Social Security Administration (SSA) revised the regulations covering
TWWIIA. SSA “relaxed earning thresholds and time requirements” for ENs and streamlined the
requirement to become an EN (Golden et al., 2012, p. 13). In 2012, Senator Tom Harkin, who
served on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee,
published a report on “the dismal disability employment situation” and called on Congress to
“elevate this issue into a national priority” (Harkin, 2012, p. 1).
Beginning in March 2011, the HELP committee conducted hearings on the topic of
employment for people with disabilities. The report suggested that there is a need to rethink the
way all programs that support people with disabilities are structured. The report made clear that
integrated competitive employment needs to be the goal. The recession of 2008 dramatically
affected employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. As the economy began to
rebound, workers with disabilities did not experience the same recovery in employment as
people without disabilities. “In 2012, the employment rate for people with disabilities was
18
32.7% compared to individuals without disabilities who had an employment rate of 73.6%,”
which equals an “employment gap of 40.8%” (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on
Disability Statistics and Demographics, 2013, p. 26). In addition to issues of unemployment,
underemployment still remains a factor for people with disabilities. In federal fiscal year 2011,
the United States spent over 3.9 billion dollars for VR services expenditures on people with
disabilities (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and
Demographics, 2013). According to the Council of State Administrators of Vocational
Rehabilitation (CSAVR), in fiscal year 2011, VR programs assisted 178,188 individuals with
disabilities in achieving an employment goal. This was a 9% increase from fiscal year 2010
(CSAVR, 2013).
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
In order to continue to address the employment the outlook for people with disabilities, in
2014 Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (H.R. 803, 2014).
The final version of the WIOA was a compromise bill between the SKILLS Act (H.R. 803),
passed by the U.S. House in 2013, and the Workforce Investment Act of 2013 (S. 1356), which
was passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee also in 2013
(Schroeder, 2014). A section-by-section review of the WIOA legislation shows that within the
WIOA, Title IV reauthorizes amendments to the Rehabilitation Act and adds specific
requirements. The Rehabilitation Act has been due for reauthorization since 2003. This new bill
requires state VR programs to submit a unified or combined state plan to the secretaries of
Education and Labor for approval instead of to the RSA Commissioner. The WIOA creates a
new section for the provision of pre-employment transition services. It requires a 15% set-aside
for provision of such services. This new legislation creates additional monitoring and review
19
criteria and greatly expands the services VR agencies provide to employers. New standards and
performance indicators will be established to replace those created by the RSA commissioner
under WIA. A requirement was added to clarify responsibilities for service delivery for those
individuals receiving services from both employment networks and state rehabilitation services.
Other new requirements outline expectations for cooperative agreements with other state
agencies serving people with disabilities. WIOA changed the Comprehensive System of
Personnel Development to include provisions for a bachelor’s degree in a field of study
reasonably related to vocational rehabilitation or attainment of a master’s or doctoral degree in
certain fields of study. Appropriations for state vocational rehabilitation programs under the new
WIOA legislation is level-funded for each of the next five years and the cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) is added to the base and is guaranteed (Schroeder, 2014).
In addition to the changes to the Rehabilitation Act, funding for training of rehabilitation
personnel has now become part of the program’s general appropriation. Another resource that
has been available to address the training needs of public rehabilitation personnel has been the
Technical Assistance and Continuing Education Centers (TACE). These programs will sunset
September 30, 2014. To date, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services
(OSERS) has announced a priority for one national Job-Driven Vocational Rehabilitation
Technical Assistance Center which primarily looks to serve the training needs of employers.
WIOA moves both Independent Living programs and what was the National Institute for
Disability-Related Research (NIDRR) from the Department of Education to the Department of
Health & Human Services (HHS) and adds Independent Living to its title to become the National
Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (H.R. 803, 2014). It is
20
too early to tell how this move will impact research dollars for vocational rehabilitation program
services.
Leadership of State-Federal Rehabilitation Programs
As resources have tightened and services have expanded over the years to an ever-
increasing pool of individuals with a variety of disabilities, the public rehabilitation program is
faced with increasing demands on rehabilitation agency leadership. Rehabilitation leaders must
find ways to increase the number of individuals, with a wide variety of disabilities, to become
successfully employed in integrated job settings. “Despite the development and enhancement of
public policies promoting workforce development and employment participation over the past
three decades, individuals with disabilities continue to experience disparate workforce
participation rates and lower earnings than their non-disabled peers” (Golden et al., 2012, p. 16).
Golden et al. state there is a need for workforce partners to focus on identification of promising
and evidence-based practices leading to increased employment opportunities for people with
disabilities. Areas for research outlined by Golden et al. include systems integration, data
sharing, collaboration and partnerships, shared expertise and vocational rehabilitation. In order
to achieve the legislative objectives, there is a need for “continued focus on redefining
organizational culture and evolving systems capacities to meet complex challenges faced by
individuals with disabilities who want to work” (Golden et al., 2012, p. 16). Forward movement
in rehabilitation will be a function of leadership and Saleh states that it will need to include self-
appraisal and the desire to make a positive difference (Saleh, 1991). Even in times of change,
leaders must work on the system, creating opportunities as well as energy and excitement.
Vision, values and creativity should be used by leaders when in setting direction (Daniels, 1997).
One question needing to be proposed to rehabilitation leaders is “what options are most needed
21
and practical to insure that most or all can perform these critical jobs when they enter them and
throughout their tenure?” (Simon, 1991, p. 209). No longer is reactionary leadership enough.
According to Saleh, rehabilitation leaders must be able to: (1) Be dedicated to self-improvement
and professional development; (2) Communicate clearly to create the “voice” of rehabilitation;
(3) Develop followers who are dedicated to the future of the field; (4) Bridge the gap with
outside entities; and (5) Foster the development of in-service education (Saleh, 1991). “The
most formidable obstacle to rehabilitation efforts to fulfill its function to the fullest lies with
creating capable, effective leadership” (Saleh, 1991, p. 212). There have been a number of
articles that discuss rehabilitation leadership competencies and how those attributes can
contribute to creating high-performing organizations (Atkinson, 1997; Atkinson & Bitter, 1997;
Ford, 1997). Through competent leadership, public rehabilitation agencies can meet the
challenges in an ever-changing political and legislative landscape. “As change accelerates, the
need for leadership also accelerates” (Saleh, 1991, p. 211). According to Atkinson, leaders, not
organizations, create excellence (Atkinson, 1997).
Funding is a major factor among the many challenges facing state-federal rehabilitation
agency leaders. Though costs have increased, since the early 1990s state-federal rehabilitation
agencies have essentially been level-funded (O’Brien & Graham, 2009). There has always been
“a need to balance existing need against available resources” (Shaw, 1997, p. 296). Today,
leaders of state-federal rehabilitation programs must find creative ways to obtain diminishing
state dollars in order to bring down their allotted federal match dollars. In the age WIOA,
training dollars used for staff development will now be part of an agency’s general allotment
and, of the agency’s allotment, 15% is now required to be set aside for pre-employment
transition services (Schroeder, 2014). The WIOA includes language that may allow for staff
22
with less than the state or national standard for rehabilitation counselors or other personnel. By
definition, those individuals may need additional training to understand disability-related issues
in order to be successful with agency clients.
“Understanding the industry” (Atkinson, 1997, p. 251) is critical to moving rehabilitation
agencies forward. At the agency director level, this means understanding the political
environments one must operate in. Individuals in positions of executive leadership must help
their organizations adapt to often complex changes. Those “organizations which adapt to
turbulent external changes are those more likely to survive” (Latta, 1981, p. 51). “The successful
rehabilitation leader must be an expert in rehabilitation matters, total community efforts, and
operations and collaborative efforts with sister agencies; at the same time he or she must
understand the political, economic, and social elements of power as well” (Daniels, 1997, p.
245). “The challenges of vocational rehabilitation have never been more evident, nor the need
for more and better VR services been greater” (McMahon & Chan, 2011, p. 189). In this climate
of fast-paced change, the need for evidence-based practices is crucial to support the work that
state-federal VR agencies provide. In an age of accountability, state-federal VR directors must
develop organizational climates that create learning organization and utilize evidence-based
practices (Daniels, 1997).
Evidence-Based Practices
There has been an expectation in recent years on state-federal VR programs to
demonstrate accountability for employment outcomes of those served by the state-federal system
through the development and use of evidence-based practices. There is now an increased focus
on research dedicated to improving practice and the translation, dissemination and utilization of
that knowledge throughout the 83 state-federal agencies that represent the public VR program.
23
The emphasis of the National Institute of Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDILRR) on knowledge translation of research findings into practice highlights the
paucity of evidence-based practice and sets the agenda for the work that needs to be done. As
indicated by Pruett, Swett, Chan, Rosenthal and Lee (2008), the powerful question posed by Paul
(1967) years ago, “What treatment, by whom, is most effective for this individual with that
specific problem, and under which set of circumstances?” (p. 111), remains for the most part
unanswered within the public rehabilitation program (Leahy, Thielsen, Millington, Austin &
Fleming, 2009; Sherman et al., 2014).
Although federal mandates from the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) for
public VR programs initially focused on the design of program evaluation systems and the
collection, analysis and reporting of data on the impact of services, the focus has evolved over
the years to emphasize how these data are used for continuous improvement in the delivery of
services and the outcomes achieved. In recent years there has also been increased attention on
the concepts of quality assurance systems or plans, evidenced-based practice (EBP), and
knowledge translation (KT) efforts within the health care, disability and rehabilitation arenas.
These initiatives are associated with the use of quantitative and qualitative data obtained through
research and evaluation efforts to inform policy, practice and continuous improvement strategies
for organizations that serve people with disabilities. One of the most critical issues that affects
the quality and usefulness of program evaluation, research and continuous improvement efforts
is the degree to which the leadership and management of the organization value such efforts.
Sherman et al. (2014) state that this is similar to the development of a learning culture within
organizations that creates and sustains an environment that supports the creation of best
practices, provides the resources to rigorously examine the impact of these promising practices
24
and interventions on employment outcomes of the consumers they serve.” Leahy et al. in 2009
stated that if the state director in a public rehabilitation program does not value and invest in
program evaluation and research efforts, those activities will be minimally effective and only
serve to satisfy compliance with regulatory standards.
Culture
Culture is the “medium through which leadership travels and impacts organizational
performance” (Packard, 2009, p. 154). Culture is closely tied to an organization’s top leadership.
An organization’s culture guides the organization’s behavior (Giberson et al., 2009). One of the
definitions of organizational culture is the “organizational values, beliefs and hidden assumptions
that organizational members have in common” (Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez
& Perez-Caballero, 2011, p. 999). Culture provides shared meanings and helps interpret
information provided and events that occur in the organization (Giberson et al., 2009).
“Meaning and information are then passed down and taught to new members as a way of
handling organizational problems” (Sherman et al., 2014).
“Culture can influence employee views of what is and what is not important, it allows an
individual to develop knowledge that can impact organizational learning, and it creates processes
by which knowledge is created, approved and distributed” (Sherman et al., 2014). Schein (1984)
defined different levels of organizational culture as basic assumptions that are unconsciously-
held learned responses. Schein (1984) believes learned responses determine (1) how group
members perceive, think and feel; (2) values and beliefs that are part of an individual’s
consciously held concepts that are used to justify beliefs and actions; and (3) objects and
physical settings that include office layouts and organizational symbols. “Leaders rely on these
25
cultural precepts to manage people, to develop strategy and to implement organizational change”
(Sherman et al., 2014).
Schultz (2008) noted that culture was the collective practice of the organization. He
stated that “organizations thrive when the organizational culture facilitates buy-in, creativity, and
personal involvement of professional staff (p. 40).” The culture of an organization influences the
behavior of those in the organization and can serve as a mechanism for bringing employees
together to enhance organizational goals and increase productivity (Schraeder, Tears & Jordan,
2005). In organizations, culture is the shared meaning and understanding of the organization
(Giberson et al., 2009). Sherman et al. (2014) stated that “organizational culture affects all facets
of the organization including policies, procedures, and operational strategies.” The culture of an
organization can help or hinder an organization’s ability to accept change, be innovative and
encourage and create new knowledge from which employees can be more productive and meet
customer need (Rijal, 2010; Schraeder et al., 2005; Brown, 1992). The development of the
organization as a learning environment is determined by the organization’s culture, which can
also impact organizational innovation (Sherman et al., 2014).
Leadership, Culture and the Learning Organization
Transitioning state VR agencies from administrative entities (Herbert, 2004; Herbert &
Trusty, 2006; Schultz, 2007; Schultz, 2008; Bezyak, Ososkie, Trice & Yeager, 2010) into
learning organizations that develop and promote evidence-based service delivery practices is
necessary to enhancing program outcomes and creating environments that facilitate innovation.
Learning organizations develop new knowledge and insight from the common experiences of its
employees and has the potential to promote positive behaviors and improve the organization’s
capabilities (Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez & Perez-Caballero, 2011).
26
Learning organizations are better at retaining staff, encouraging innovation and developing
evidence-based practices to improve organizational performance (Schultz, 2007; Packard, 2009).
According to Sessa and London (2006), three levels of learning occur within organizations: (1)
Adaptive learning occurs when an organization reacts to and attempts to resolve an issue in a
manner that is not conscious or reflective in nature, (2) Generative learning occurs when
individuals seek out new knowledge about a subject or issue, and (3) Transformational learning
occurs when a group of individuals experience a shift in the way they perceive their environment
(Mezirow, 2000; Schultz, 2007). The greatest benefit for an organization occurs through
generative and transformational learning (Schultz, 2007).
De Long and Fahey (2000) suggest that culture shapes organizational learning in four
ways: “(1) culture shapes employee assumptions about whether knowledge is important or not
and what knowledge is worth managing, (2) culture allows individual knowledge to become
organizational knowledge, (3) culture shapes the processes by which new knowledge is created,
legitimated and distributed, and (4) culture creates the context for social interaction that
ultimately determines how effective an organization can be at creating, sharing and applying
knowledge.”
In an attempt to define organizational culture in relation to organizational learning,
Cameron and Quinn (1999) proposed the Competing Values Framework (CVF). The CVF is an
extremely useful tool for analyzing organizational culture and designing a course for changing
such culture in a way to effectively promote sweeping strategic initiatives (Lincoln, 2010).
Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) explained CVF in terms of two major dimensions that included
four major quadrants representing opposite assumptions. Dimension 1 ranges from flexibility
and discretion to stability and control in the organization. Dimension 2 ranges from internal
27
focus and integration to external focus and differentiation in the organization. The four major
quadrants defined by these two axes are labeled as clan, market, hierarchy and adhocracy
(Cameron & Quinn, 2006; Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez & Sanz-Valle, 2011). Figure 2
illustrates the CVF model.
“Clan culture is collaborative in nature, has an emphasis on flexibility, internal
maintenance, teamwork, employee involvement, empowerment, cohesion, participation, and
corporate commitment to employees. In this culture, leaders and management encourage
mentoring, nurturing, trust, and sharing. Market culture is externally focused and decision-
making is based on data analysis. The emphasis is on productivity, profitability, market share
and winning” (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 117). Leaders and managers are strategic, competitive,
and results-oriented (Giberson et al., 2009; Lincoln, 2010; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011; Millington &
Schultz, 2009).
Flexibility and Discretion
Internal focus and
integration
Clan Adhocracy External focus and differentiation
Hierarchy Market
Stability and Control
Figure 4. Competing Values Map (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983)
“Hierarchical culture focuses on the internal organization (i.e., structured bureaucracy)
and is control-oriented. Decision-making is centralized with information coming down through
28
the chain of command” (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 118). In hierarchical systems, the use of
authority by those in administrative roles, efficiency, cost containment, and compliance to rules
are of paramount importance (Sanz-Valle et al., 2011; Millington & Schultz, 2009).
“Conversely, adhocracy is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility or dynamism,
adaptability, and change. Decision-making is decentralized and creativity, entrepreneurship, and
risk-taking are expected and valued. In this culture, teams are formed around projects and
communication flows up the chain of command. As a result, leaders and managers in adhocracy
systems value innovation and building partnerships with external stakeholders” (Sherman et al.,
2014, p. 118). Such culture promotes survival in an uncertain, ambiguous, and turbulent
environment (Lincoln, 2010; Millington & Schultz, 2009; Sanz-Valle et al., 2011).
Different organizational cultures have different impacts on organizational learning (Sanz-
Valle et al., 2011). Leaders in these programs have often overseen hierarchical cultures
(Millington & Schultz, 2009) that focus on internal organization and control (Giberson et al.,
2009). Sherman et al. (2014) state that characteristics of these types of hierarchical cultures
include following the rules, regulations and norms. They go on to state that leadership styles
emphasizing this type of culture has negative effects on learning and therefore does not
encourage movement to a learning organization.
The Culture of Leadership
No matter how large the organization, agency leaders need to develop an organizational
culture that encourages innovation at all levels and creates a learning environment leading to
sustainable synergy. Leadership of an organization can be defined as “the process by which
leaders influence the attitudes, behaviors, values of others toward organizational goals” (Chi,
Lan & Dorjgotov, 2012, p. 1015) or a “process by which an individual influences a group of
29
individuals to achieve common goals” (Packard, 2009, p. 144). The effect of leadership
behaviors on organizational culture is of importance to organizational success and effectiveness.
Leadership is an important variable that affects the performance of an organization (Packard,
2009). The leadership behavior of an organization creates, either knowingly or unknowingly, the
culture of the organization in which staff operates (Packard, 2009). Leadership that facilitates a
culture that allows for the creation of a learning organization encourages the development,
acquisition, transformation, and dissemination of new knowledge that can foster innovation
leading to effective best practices (Rijal, 2010).
Organizational culture is one of the management tools available to leaders of
organizations to shape employee performance (Lincoln, 2010; Giberson et al., 2009). Culture
can improve employee performance by reducing job stress and enhancing the confidence and
commitment of employees (Lincoln, 2010; Shahzad, Luqman, Khan & Shabbir, 2012).
Schein (1984, 1992, 1993, 1997) has done extensive research into organizational culture
and leadership. Schein suggests that organizational learning should be looked at in terms of an
organization’s culture (Schein, 1992, 1993; Lucas & Kline, 2008). In his basic model, Schein
noted that behaviors, values and basic assumptions, such as ways of thinking, perceiving and
reacting, are powerful forces that stabilize organizations (Shahzad et al., 2012). The
convergence of attitudes, behaviors and values of those in an organization is considered
leadership (Chi, Lan & Dorjgotov, 2012). Schein believes that leadership, particularly at the
chief executive or director level, is tied to an organization’s culture. The leadership of an
organization, through strategic and operational decisions, forms the basis of shared values and
assumptions that form an organization’s culture (Giberson et al., 2009).
30
The “personality traits of leaders influence culture and are one way to understand the
connection between the leader and his/her organization” (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 118). Bass
(1985) defined a transformational leader as “one who motivates followers to do more than they
originally expected to do.” Transformational leaders expand and can change the interests of their
followers, and generate awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the
organization. Transformational leadership consisted of three components: (1) charismatic
leadership, where the leader exhibits behaviors that subordinates admire and appreciate; (2)
intellectual stimulation, where the leader encourages innovation and creativity; and (3)
individualized consideration, where the leader finds ways for followers to identify goals and
enables opportunities to achieve those goals (Packard, 2009). Bass believes that transformational
leaders, who believe in the principle of power with rather than power over, make strategic and
operational decisions that impact the culture of their organizations and influence those who work
within the culture. Transformational leaders encourage creation of learning environments that
support staff in implementing best practices that lead to greater organizational success (Tuft,
2012).
Senge (1994) popularized the term “learning organization” in the 1990s in his book The
Fifth Discipline. He identified three leadership roles needed to build a learning organization:
leaders as designers, leaders as teachers, and leaders as stewards (Senge, 1994). Support of
innovation, transformation and change is required to create a transformational culture (Sherman
et al, 2014). Leaders of learning organizations must provide a clear and attractive vision of the
organization’s future that creates commitment from followers in achieving goals (Warrick,
2011). Transformational leaders see a need for change, create a new vision and obtain from
followers a commitment to organizational change (Rijal, 2010). Rijal believes these leaders
31
work with their followers to embrace uncertainty and facilitate followers’ understanding of the
goals of the learning organization. Transformational leaders build commitment and then set
about empowering their followers to “look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the
group” (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004, p. 350). In order to transform their organization,
transformational leaders recognize the need for change, create a new vision and institute the
change (Warrick, 2011; Yang, Wu, Chang & Chien, 2011).
Leadership in Times of Change
The state-federal VR program has been challenged to demonstrate the effectiveness of
VR services provided to eligible customers. In resource-limited environments, evidence of
efficacy and effectiveness can help make programmatic funding decisions so that agencies can
show that the services they provide work (Brannon, 2010). The emphasis on the development
and implementation of EBPs is needed to assist state-federal VR agencies in demonstrating the
effectiveness of VR service provision. Executive leadership sets the tone to create cultures that
can transform agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff towards innovation is
a critical and necessary step.
In order to achieve VR program success in times of constant change, leaders must create
a culture of adhocracy that supports a learning organization. The decisions that these leaders
make, who these leaders are, and their perceptions of the resources needed to support informed
decisions will be the topic of this study. McFarlane et al. suggest that the leadership question of
our time is about how state-federal VR directors lead during “times of substantive changes with
enormously challenging fiscal realities?” (McFarlane et al., 2011, p. 5). The findings from the
study may assist stakeholders in the field of rehabilitation in developing the programs and
32
resources necessary to support state-federal VR directors in enhancing their organizations’
ability to transform their agencies into high performers that can thrive in a climate of change.
Summary
The state-federal VR program originated through federal legislation. Over the years,
amendments to the Rehabilitation Act encouraged research and training of rehabilitation
counselors in an effort to assure that consistent, quality services were provided to eligible
individual with disabilities. In the 21st century, many rehabilitation agencies have experienced
downward trends across federal indicators that assess VR program success. In 2014, the latest
amendments to the Rehabilitation Act resulted in the act being included as Title IV of the WIOA.
Appropriations for the funding of state-federal rehabilitation programs under WIOA will be
level-funded for each of the next five years. In addition, training dollars are now part of the
program’s general fund. While costs have increased, many agencies are not bringing in all of
their allotted federal dollars because matching state dollars have decreased. While diminishing
program dollars have directly impacted VR agencies, expectations for accountability have
increased. Today, state-federal VR directors must find creative ways to fund their programs and
inspire their staff. These individuals can help their organizations adapt to change in order to
survive and thrive. The culture created by the state-federal VR director guides the behavior of
the organization. Creation of organizational cultures, such as a culture of adhocracy, is one of
the management tools available to shape employee performance (Lincoln, 2010; Giberson et al.,
2009). The decisions that these leaders make, who these leaders are, and their perceptions of the
challenges and needs they are confronting may provide a window into the VR program of the
future.
33
Chapter 3
Methods
The purpose of this study is to provide an in-depth examination of the findings of a case
study of 12 state-federal VR directors, selected from the higher-performing agencies in the
continental United States. Agencies selected are those that scored at least one six and no less
than a five out of six of the federal performance indicators, using the Rehabilitation Services
Administration’s (RSA) 911 federal indicator data from fiscal 7ears 2011, 2012 and 2013. These
agencies were selected due to their high performance on the RSA federal indicators. High-
performing agencies most often exhibit a culture of adhocracy, where the organization is
externally focused and emphasizes flexibility, adaptability and change. As a result, leaders in
adhocracy cultures generally value innovation and building partnerships with external partners
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Sherman et al., 2014, p.118). By examining the responses of directors
of higher-performing agencies, the findings of this research may be of assistance to the field of
rehabilitation and VR stakeholders in understanding the cultures created by these leaders and
resources these state-federal VR directors believe are necessary to support their agencies to be
successful. The research, using qualitative case study methodology, will examine the following
question: How do state-federal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program,
and what resources do they believe they need to create or enhance their agencies’ success in light
of the changes occurring in the field? As McFarlane et al. (2011) noted, the state-federal VR
programs of the future will not be successful if the program leaders continue to rely solely on
past experience and expertise to guide the future. Understanding how state-federal VR directors
view the future and the resources they need has the potential to shape the VR program of the
future. Utilizing this understanding, rehabilitation educators and other stakeholders may be able
34
to develop the tools and resources necessary to assist state-federal VR directors in addressing
what they believe is needed to increase employment outcomes and sustain and enhance their
organizations.
Research Design
This study used a qualitative research design that allowed the researcher to be highly
involved in the actual experiences of the participants and develop a level of detail about an
individual or place. Patton (2002) believed if not much is known and the study is exploratory in
nature that qualitative research is useful when examining the topic. “Qualitative research
methods are used less frequently in rehabilitation counseling research but this methodology can
be instrumental in understanding complex interactions between individuals and their
environment and how these phenomena influence environment” (Anderson, Leahy, Del Valle,
Sherman & Tansey, 2014, p. 88). Qualitative approaches traditionally have included narrative,
phenomenological, grounded theory, ethnographic studies and case studies.
This study used a case study approach that can be “defined as descriptive, exploratory or
explanatory analysis of a person, group, event, policy, project, decision or institutions”
(Anderson et al., 2014, p. 89). “Qualitative data is emergent, rather than preconfigured” so that
the data may emerge through the interviews with the participants (Creswell, 2009, p. 181). The
examination of phenomena in a natural setting instead of an experimental or controlled setting is
the goal of qualitative research. Using a case study design enabled the researcher to “illuminate
a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what
result” (Yin, 2009, p. 17). As Creswell (2009) has noted, case studies explore a bounded system
through in-depth data collection, involving multiple sources of information that report a
description of themes (Anderson et al., 2014). Case study design enables replication in order to
35
independently confirm emerging constructs and identify complementary aspects, which are
analyzed within and across settings (Anderson et al., 2014). This type of study can be beneficial
in understanding the issue being studied.
Based on the RSA data in Appendix I, 13 state-federal VR directors of general or
combined higher-performing agencies from around the country have been identified. Of those
13 identified state-federal directors, 12 of the 13 state-federal directors agreed to participate in
the study, returning their signed informed consent document. The response rate was 92.3%. All
12 of the state-federal VR directors participated in a Zoom interview, in which the interviews
were audio recorded, video recorded or both. The interviews utilized a structured interview
guide to solicit information from the participants.
Procedures
This study utilized a qualitative case study design with 12 of the identified 13 state-
federal VR agency directors serving as the individual case sites. These cases were selected
intentionally rather than randomly to examine the particular research question comprehensively
and in greater depth. The state-federal VR agency directors, from both urban and rural states in
the continental United States, were selected to participate. VR agency directors were chosen
from agencies based on that agency’s RSA 911 federal indicator data for FY 2011, FY 2012 and
FY 2013. The selected state-federal agency directors’ agencies must have passed the RSA
federal indicator data by passing with at least one six and no less than five of six federal
performance indicators used to measure agency performance over fiscal years 2011, 2012 and
2013, indicating higher performance levels of these agencies over a three-year period of time
(Appendix I). Consistent with the protocol recommended by Yin (2009), the same
36
methodological framework was used across the cases in order to enhance representativeness and
robustness when consistent findings emerge across sites.
After IRB approval of this exempt study was approved (Appendix A), to begin the
qualitative research process, the researcher contacted both the Council of State Administrators of
Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) for their approval, and the identified state-federal VR
directors across the country for buy-in and to obtain their informed consent to be involved in this
study. The researcher arranged for a time to speak with each of the 12 selected state-federal
directors who agreed to take part in the study. The structured interview questions were sent out
to participants approximately five days prior to the telephone interviews. Each interview was
recorded using the Zoom platform to capture audio, video or both. Not all of the state-federal
directors had access to the video-recording features in Zoom and for that reason only the audio
portion of those recordings were utilized so that consistency was obtained in the data. Upon
completion of the interviews, the MP4 audio recording was sent to a third party for transcription.
Transcripts were then uploaded in Dedoose, a qualitative cloud-based software package used to
code and analyze the content of the data collected. The qualitative content analysis of the data
collected included: (1) identifying the research questions, (2) determining the analytic categories,
(3) using the data collected to establish categories, (4) determining objective criteria for the
categories, (5) sorting the data into the various categories, and (6) considering the patterns that
might offer an explanation for the findings.
37
Case (N=12)
Interview protocol
Interview recordings
Transcripts
Notes
Documents
Case study analysis
Codes and themes
Cross-thematic matrix
Discussion
Implications
Future research
Purposefully select participants using RSA 911 data
Refine interview questions
Code and analyze themes
Develop within-case and across-case themes
Utilize qualitative software
Interpret and explain the qualitative results
Conduct individual in-depth Zoom interviews
Review collected documents
Case Selection
Qualitative Data Collection
Qualitative Data Analysis
Qualitative Results
ProductProcedurePhase
Figure 5. Visual Model for Qualitative Research Design
Instrumentation
A multiple case study design (Yin, 2009) was used for selecting and analyzing the
qualitative data. Based on RSA 911 federal indicator data, 13 state-federal VR directors around
the country from higher-performing agencies were selected to participate in a Zoom interview.
The researcher requested that the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
(CSAVR) support the research study, which CSAVR agreed to do (Appendix B), by sending out
an email introducing the study to the 13 selected agency directors (Appendix C). Once the
CSAVR email was sent out to the identified state-federal VR directors, the researcher sent each
director an introductory email (Appendix D) inviting them to participate in the study by returning
the attached informed consent form (Appendix E). A second email was sent out two weeks later
to those who had not yet sent in the informed consent.
38
Of the 13 selected directors, 12 agreed to participate in the study by returning their signed
informed consent document. The response rate for the study was 92.3%. The interviews utilized
a structured interview guide to solicit information from the participants. The interviews were
recorded via audio, video or both, once permission to record was obtained, and transcribed
verbatim (Creswell, 2009). Steps in the qualitative analysis included: (1) Preliminary
exploration of the data through use of audio-recorded interviews, using a semi-structured
interview guide and notes; (2) Once the interviews were recorded, the MP4 audio file was sent to
a third party for transcription; (3) Once the transcript was received, it was sent to each state
director for verification of accuracy of the interview; nine of the state directors verified the
accuracy of the transcript, while three did not respond, of which two had retired since the
interviews took place; (4) Transcripts were imported into Dedoose, a cloud-based qualitative
software package, and coded; (5) Transcripts were sent to two outside coders for verification of
the data codes through inter-coder agreement check; (6) Themes were developed by aggregating
similar codes using connecting and interrelating themes; and (7) A case study narrative was
constructed composed of cross-case thematic analysis (Creswell, 2009; Glesne, 2011).
The credibility of the findings was enhanced by member checking, inter-coder
agreement, and use of an auditor (Creswell, 2009; Glesne, 2011; Yin, 2009). An external
auditor, who is a Ph.D.-level educator/researcher, was selected to review the entire project to
provide an assessment of its accuracy and to ask clarifying questions throughout the study
process (Creswell, 2009).
The data was coded and themes developed with the assistance of two Ph.D.-level
educators/researchers doing independent coding of the transcripts. The accuracy of the data was
accomplished through member-checking, where participants confirmed accuracy by reviewing
39
their own transcript and commenting on themes and the report findings. Inter-rater reliability
was addressed by asking three independent raters to review the researcher’s coding at various
points in the coding process. Rater #1 and Rater #2 reviewed each transcript before it was coded
to minimize confirmation bias, and then reviewed the coded transcript. Once the transcripts were
coded, the external auditor on the project reviewed the coded transcripts. The researcher
reviewed the comments of each rater and the external auditor as they were provided, and made
adjustments in the coding based on the reviewers’ comments as needed.
The semi-structured interview guide (Appendix F) consisted of a demographic section
and seven questions, with sub-questions to be asked of each selected state-federal VR director.
The structured interview guide addressed the research question of “How do state-federal VR
directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program and what resources do they believe
they need to create or enhance their agencies’ success in light of the changes occurring in the
field?”
Participants
Once the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study as exempt, the Council of
State Agencies of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) was contacted to provide the researcher
with approval for the study. CSAVR sent each of the identified participants an email supporting
the study and encouraging each state-federal VR director to participate. The 13 selected state-
federal VR agency directors, from across the continental United States, were then contacted for
participation in the study. Selection of the participants was based on the 2011, 2012 and 2013
RSA federal indicators of state-federal VR agencies, who over that three-year time period scored
at least one six and no less than a five of the six required federal indicators, as outlined in Table
1. Achieving at least one six and no less than a five for passing scores out of six of the federal
40
indicators over the three year-time period indicates the higher performance of that state-federal
VR agency. These agency directors were selected due to their agencies’ high performance on the
RSA federal indicators. High-performing agencies most often exhibit a culture of adhocracy,
where the organization is externally focused and emphasizes flexibility, adaptability and change.
As a result, leaders in adhocracy cultures value innovation and building partnerships with
external partners (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Sherman et al., 2014, p.118). The leadership of an
organization, through strategic and operational decisions, particularly at the chief executive or
director level, forms the basis of shared values and assumptions that forms the organization’s
culture (Giberson et al., 2009). Of the 13 state-federal directors contacted, 12 agreed to
participate by sending back to the researcher their signed informed consent document. Once the
informed consent was received by the researcher, interview dates and times were set up.
Approximately five days prior to the interview, each state-federal director was sent the questions
on the semi-structured guide and an invitation to the Zoom interview session (Appendix G) so
they could access the program by logging in on a computer with a microphone and camera
(video/audio recording) or dialing in (audio recording) on their telephone. Each interview lasted
between 60 to 75 minutes in length.
Table 1.
Higher-Performing State-Federal VR Agencies by Federal Fiscal Year
State 2011 2012 2013
Alaska 6 6 5
Iowa 5 6 6
Kentucky 6 5 6
Mississippi 6 6 6
Nebraska 6 6 6
New Hampshire 6 5 6
Oklahoma 6 5 5
Oregon 6 6 6
South Dakota 6 6 6
41
Table 1. (cont’d)
Utah 6 5 6
West Virginia 6 5 5
Wisconsin 6 5 6
Wyoming 6 6 5
Role of the Researcher
In qualitative research, the researcher that is the instrument and the credibility of the
research depends on the researcher’s skill set, knowledge, competence and life circumstances
(Patton, 2002). Researchers using this type of methodology need to be both researcher and
learner to be effective (Glesne, 2011). All researchers are susceptible to bias. All interviews
were recorded and transcribed verbatim, by a third party, to facilitate accuracy of the data. To
check for accuracy and increase reliability of the data collected, a Ph.D.-level
educator/researcher was utilized as an auditor to review the various stages of the study.
Limitations of Study
This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the state-federal VR program
from the director’s perspective and to determine how these directors see the future of the public
VR program. There are several limitations to be noted. First, this study looked at the
perspectives of 12 out of 49 (includes the District of Columbia) state-federal VR directors of
general and combined agencies located in the continental United States. The study only included
higher-performing general and combined agencies based on published data from the FY 2011,
2012 and 2013 RSA federal indicators. Therefore, caution should be used in making
interpretations or generalizations beyond those agencies.
Qualitative research, in general, is subject to personal biases and this study is no
exception. The researcher conducting the study worked for over 28 years in the state-federal VR
program and was in management at a state-federal VR agency for 20 of those years. The
42
researcher discussed personal biases regularly with her advisor and mentor to assist with
recognition of her biases. Additionally, two Ph.D.-level educators/researchers were enlisted to
help with independent coding of the data collected, as well as theme development, and a Ph.D.-
level educator/researcher audited the study process.
43
Chapter 4
Results
Participant Demographics
Twelve directors, out of 13, agreed to participate in the study. The response rate was
92.3%. The participants interviewed consisted of nine men and three women. These state-
federal VR directors were from across the continental United States and were leading either
combined or general VR agencies. The directors had varying lengths of time as their agency
head. Of the 12 directors, one has since retired. Another director was serving in an acting
capacity and has been replaced since the interview took place. Three of the directors interviewed
have been in place less than a year.
Titles of state-federal directors
The 12 state-federal VR agency leaders held a number of job titles, the most prevalent
being Director, with five holding that title. Three were called Administrators and three held the
title of Executive Director. In addition to the title of Director, one also held the co-title of VR
Field Services Administrator. At the time of the interview, one state-federal VR leader was an
Acting Director and has since left the position. One of the Executive Directors has also retired
since the interview took place.
Type of state-federal VR agency
The 12 state-federal VR leaders interviewed were made up of seven from combined
agencies that serve both general and blind clients and five from general agencies that serve all
disabilities, except for individuals who are blind or visually impaired.
44
Table 2.
States by Program Type
Combined (7) General (5)
Alaska
Mississippi
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Iowa
Kentucky
Nebraska
Oregon
South Dakota
Years in current position
The state-federal VR directors interviewed had varying lengths of time on the job. The
newest director had been there for only three months, while the most senior director had been in
his position for 18 years.
Figure 6. Years in Position by State
Previous position titles
The previous positions of the state-federal VR directors included two who had previously
served as Deputy Director of the VR agency. Other job titles for previously held positions
45
included being an Administrator of another agency, an Administrative Operations Manager,
Assistant Bureau Chief, Assistant Director of Field Services, Bureau Director for Field Services,
Executive Director of another agency, Modernization Director in the DSA, VR Supervisor in the
central office, and an Administrative Services Director.
State departmental locations
Names of the various Designated State Agencies (DSA), where the agency is housed,
varied. Three were located in the Department of Education. Two agencies were each located in
the Department of Workforce Development, the Department of Human Services, and the
Department of Rehabilitation Services. The other state-federal VR agencies were located in the
Cabinet of Education and Workforce, Secretary of Education and Arts, and the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development.
Figure 7. Designated State Agencies Distribution
Designated state unit locations
State-federal VR agencies went by a number of names, including six agencies that were
called the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Three state-federal VR agencies’ Designated
46
State Units (DSU) were called Vocational Rehabilitation Services, two were named Department
of Rehabilitation Services, and one was called the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation.
Years with current VR agency
Years with the current agency varied in length of time. The ranges included one director
that had been there for four and a half months to another director that had been with the agency
for 43 years. The breakdown for lengths of time with the agencies is in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Years with Current Agency
Years in public rehabilitation
The years in public rehabilitation, with the current agency or another rehabilitation
organization, showed one director who had been in public rehabilitation for a total of four and a
half months, the shortest length of time, all the way to another director who had been working in
rehabilitation for 43 years, the longest length of time. The breakdown of years in public
rehabilitation is located in Figure 9.
47
Figure 9. Years in Public Rehabilitation
Educational backgrounds and degrees
The educational background of the 12 directors showed that eight of the directors had
master’s degrees and four of the directors had bachelor’s degrees. The master’s degree
breakdown showed that two directors each had master’s degrees in Education and two in
Rehabilitation Counseling. Other master’s degrees were in Counseling, Rehabilitation
Counseling Psychology, and Personnel Services. The four directors with bachelor’s degrees
were degrees in Accounting, Finance and Accounting, Sociology, and Business.
Licenses or certification held
Five of the state-federal VR directors held no licenses or certifications. Of those
directors that did hold licenses or certifications, four were Certified Rehabilitation Counselors
(CRC). Of the remaining directors, one each held a Microsoft Certification, one was a Certified
Public Accountant (CPA), and one was a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC).
48
Themes and Categories
After each director’s informed consent was received by the researcher, the 12 interview
dates and times were set up. Approximately five days prior to the interview, each state-federal
director was sent the questions on the semi-structured guide and an invitation to the Zoom
interview session so they could access the program by logging in on a computer with a
microphone and camera (video/audio recording) or dialing in (audio recording) on their
telephone. Each interview lasted between 60 to 75 minutes in length. The interviews, once
recorded, were sent to a third party for transcription services.
Once the interviews were transcribed, the transcripts were loaded into Dedoose, a cloud-
based qualitative software package. The transcripts were coded inside of Dedoose by the
researcher. Two Ph.D.-level educators/researchers each went into Dedoose and coded the
transcripts separately to ensure inter-rater reliability. Themes were then identified that emerged
from the data. A Ph.D. researcher was utilized as an auditor on the study and she reviewed the
entire project after coding by all parties was completed. The results of the findings and the
themes on the future of the state-federal VR program are discussed below.
Future of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program
Perspectives of the VR program in the next decade
State-federal VR directors see increased collaboration with partners outside the agency,
especially workforce partners and school systems. One state-federal VR director offered this
view: “It’s about how we connect with our business partners and our community providers so it
is about building relationships.” The future will require stronger cross-agency partnerships
leading to better outcomes for people with disabilities. Statements such as VR will be “a much
better place for people with disabilities because they will earn higher wages, they will be more
49
integrated into society and it’ll be a much better place” showed a positive outlook for public VR
programs. Respondents note that shifting demographics will drive the changes, an overarching
theme surrounding the current challenges with WIOA and the dramatic changes required.
“Taking advantage of technologies” will be a key to the VR program’s future and having
“stronger connections to the business community” will enable the VR program to “train people
into jobs.” State-federal VR directors believe the combined state plan will become the norm for
VR agencies and workforce partners.
In the future, one state-federal VR director believes “people with disabilities will have
more control” over the process. The VR program will need to “refocus on various disabilities”
and increasingly work will be done at the “local level.” Budget constraints will be a
consideration. While one director believes we are in the most “transformative stage with the
WIOA that we have seen in 40 years,” another director saw “no major changes.”
Creating VR’s future
A strong theme of collaboration among state agencies, school systems and employment
organizations was noted by the directors. Agency directors view the “combined state plan” as
being the impetus for moving forward with the theme of collaboration. Two directors discussed
the need to “change the internal culture of VR” and two other directors discussed the need to
“train staff on the changes.” As another director put it, there must be “shared commitment and
ownership on all our program goals.” “Technology implications” were mentioned by two
directors for “both employment opportunities and for people with disabilities,” as well as
“updating business practices.” Two other directors stated that outcomes/numbers might go down
as the agencies focus on specific disability mandates. Two directors thought that staff may be
doing less counseling and less physical restorations. One director stated that staff members need
50
to “work differently and work smarter,” while another director offered that VR programs need to
begin “focusing on an empowering, effective and efficient customer service experience.”
The directors consistently stated that the future will bring Workforce partners together to
work more closely, including in physical locations, and there will be a need to “focus on defining
roles of all partners” and utilization of shared resources. While one director anticipates that
“quality will go up,” two other directors expressed concerns that “funding could be cut if
numbers decrease,” especially with the increased focus on schools and youth.
State director concerns about the future
Two state-federal VR directors were concerned about the need to reserve 15% of the
budget for transition and pre-employment training services (PETS). One director summed up the
concern with the following statement: “My concern over really the expansion of the transitioning
youth services in VR is a real challenge for VR, not so much for us. We’ve been working with
transitioning youth for a long time. About 30% of our caseload and funding has been spent on
transitioning youth. I think where I’m concerned is, you know, now we’ve got to provide these
generalized PET services, pre-employment transition services, and there’s no additional funding.
There’s no additional clarification on the difference between, or, you know, what is special ed’s
responsibility, what’s VR’s responsibility? You know, we’ve got these concerns around the
15%, we don’t know how to track it. Of course, we don’t have finalized regulations at the
current time, so we’re, we’re kind of flying the plane with some of our instruments working and
some of them aren’t.” Another director put it this way: “If I had a concern, it would be within
WIOA right now and it’s most specifically the pre-employment transition services requirement
of reserving 15% of our total budget.” “Being stretched to capacity” and “getting people to work
together to remove barriers” was mentioned by more than one director. Concerns included
51
“getting one-stops to serve people with disabilities that don’t need specialized services” rather
than sending everyone who mentions a disability down the hall to the VR program. Another
director was concerned about “not losing customers due to WIOA changes.” How common
performance measures will be handled was another concern, along with the unfunded
requirements of WIOA. Providing “culture change” training to staff, along with disability
training to Workforce partners, was thought to be necessary by two of the directors.
Funding concerns mentioned by the directors, including “blended and braided services,”
“third-party contracts for funding,” “maintenance of effort” (MOE) and “match requirement”
concerns. One director surprisingly had no concerns about the future.
Rehabilitation Legislation
Improving the service delivery system for PWD in light of WIOA
In order to improve the service delivery system to meet the needs of people with
disabilities, most state-federal VR directors consider it important to “partner to increase
efficiencies” and have earlier involvement with school systems. To do this, there should be an
effort to focus outward, not inward on the agency. One director put it this way: “We have to
look outward, we have to really kind of practice what we preach in that we have to look at how
we can deliver services that do impact individuals with disabilities rather than being as worried
about the Division of Rehabilitation Services being an entity in and of itself.” Another director
said that they would like to develop a “talent acquisition portal for employers.”
A director mentioned that “we would like to see a common intake established out here so
that if a person walks in, mental health or Department of Family Services or whatever, they
would complete an intake form, and if they were in the wrong spot, they could just walk over to
VR and we would have that information available and be able to identify him or her early on.”
52
Five of the directors mentioned that the dual customer approach will improve the system, as will
working with advocacy groups and having closer ties with the State Rehabilitation Council
(SRC). In addition, there needs to be a “firm understanding of what state-federal VR agencies
are responsible for” so that VR agencies can “stay relevant.” One director specifically
mentioned that it would be helpful for RSA to provide more guidance in order for agencies to
better focus on quality outcomes.
Changes from WIOA affecting state-federal VR agencies
The state-federal VR directors discussed how WIOA would affect their organizations and
offered some specific examples. Closer connections to business was mentioned, reallocation of
resources to PET, and common performance measures were thought to be some of the effects of
WIOA implementation. One director commented: “Businesses are driving the conversation right
now.” Another agency director has a “goal of no stand-alone offices” outside of Workforce one-
stops. The need for additional business account managers or consultants was seen as necessary
to support the system under WIOA by two of the directors.
Partnerships under WIOA were seen as affecting the organizations in terms of a “battle
for recognition of VR among WIOA partners” and the pressure of “being included in planning”
by Workforce partners. One director mentioned that there will be a need to “integrate space and
equipment” within the Workforce environment.
Concerns ranged from administrative burdens to changes in providing PETS, perhaps
“being forced into an order of selection” due to trying to do more with the same or fewer
resources. There were thought to be additional pressures on partnerships, and perhaps that
waiting lists might be necessary, as the agencies try to focus on the transition mandates.
Geographic challenges remain a concern with limited staff, because it is hard to get full-time
53
equivalent (FTEs) positions. Increased use of technology was thought to be necessary to be able
to serve customers. As one director put it, “we haven’t been able to get permanent FTEs.”
Agency Actions
Maintaining the values of the rehabilitation process
Agency directors offered thoughts on ways their programs can maintain the values of the
rehabilitation process while working in the larger context of collaboration and partnership as part
of the integrated Workforce system. As one director put it, we must “keep ourselves focused on
those that we serve and keep that as our front focal point, we will maintain the mission of this
agency.” Maintaining agency focus and funding in order to create value for customers were
mentioned as ways to help maintain the values of the rehabilitation process. Providing services
that are individualized is seen as a strength of the VR programs. Three directors mentioned the
need to provide statewide in-service training about the VR program to all professional partners
and that it will be necessary to do this to assure partner understanding of the VR program. Three
directors also mentioned that being the experts on disability, assistive technology (AT), and
competitive integrated employment should assist VR with the challenge of not being absorbed
into the larger Workforce system.
Actions by state-federal VR director and resources needed
Additional funding, along with the ability to increase administrative staff, would help
most VR agencies, since administrative positions have been cut as dollars have tightened.
Actions state-federal VR directors have taken to strive to make their agencies’ performance what
they believe it should be include discussing maintenance of effort (MOE) with legislators,
training staff on the WIOA regulations, changing business processes to meet the WIOA
regulations, and educating Workforce partners. Other directors have used “coaching as a
54
leadership skill” for encouraging change with staff, developing “up-to-date case management
systems,” establishing “leadership councils,” and going on “listening tours” to assist in making
the program what they believe it should be. One director has increased initiatives such as “Work
First” in striving to meet standards and indicators. Better use of customer surveys was
mentioned by one director as a way to hear customer input.
Investments in training, such as sending staff to the Interwork leadership training that is
put on by San Diego State, as well as designing and implementing field-based quality assurance
(QA) teams, are other ways directors see themselves supporting their agencies. A state-federal
VR director discussed the need to “really have good metrics, good data, behind you so you can
see if your changes and your actions have resulted in the outcomes that you’re expecting and if
not, then being able to pivot and have some other options, so having that quarterly business
review, which we do for our entire department, for Department of Human Services, but also in
our program as well, and then having the same type of methodology which is, it’s a management
system basically at the local level and the district level as well. And so, by having that line of
sight so every counselor and every Human Services assistant can see how their work impacts the
larger goals of the program.” Interestingly, one director offered that he “does not need more
money” while most of the other directors felt they “could use more money.”
Resources needed to maintain and increase levels of success
In order to maintain the levels of success directors are experiencing today and to bring
those levels up to a higher degree of success, three state-federal VR directors felt they need to
maintain or increase their FTEs, and where they are not permanent, make their Business
Consultant positions permanent. Some directors mentioned that they could use more transition
staff, others more administrative staff. One director offered: “This program has kind of been
55
gutted, to be honest with you, at least administratively. And so we’re trying to rebuild that and
trying to make our structure, and it’s one of the things that I will be doing right away hopefully is
free some efficiencies into our structure as much as possible.” Another director mentioned they
need more staff with rehabilitation backgrounds to replace the retiring baby boomers.
It was noted that more frequent discussions with Workforce partners and better utilization
of collective (i.e., partner) resources could be of assistance to VR agencies. One director
mentioned the need for more community resources, such as rehabilitation centers, especially in
the more rural areas. One state-federal VR director talked about the need to “move from a
caseload to a workload model.”
Overall, seven state-federal VR agencies were maximizing all their state funds and five
had obtained re-allotment funds, which are funds other agencies are not able to access that
become available for other state-federal VR agencies to bring into their budgets if they have
enough state match dollars. Six of the state-federal VR directors mentioned the need to increase
federal funding levels, especially to bring on more staff.
Societal Advancements for People with Disabilities
Positioning the agency to create a better world for people with disabilities
Outreach and working with advocacy groups was noted by five directors as a key to
positioning the agency to influence and create a better world for people with disabilities, instead
of just reacting to outside forces. One director offered: “We put a lot of stock in our state
rehabilitation council. We also put a lot of stock in consumer surveys. But we have a third
entity that we have developed in our agency and it’s called the consumer advisory committees.
Those are local groups from local cities.” Another director mentioned that they “market our
program in that it is that we’re a resource for our customers.” There was a consistent theme of
56
collaboration and education to include governors and state legislators as directors sees to spread
the word about what VR does. Directors also meet with other agency directors, as one state-
federal director mentioned, “at the state level, I try to meet with those individuals from other
programs, you know, to kind of set the stage.” By educating others, including putting out
success stories, state-federal VR directors sought to be proactive in creating change for people
with disabilities. One VR director addressed the National Governors Association, while others
were involved with CSAVR initiatives. Some of the directors were interested in technology and
discussed the need for better client information systems, while another director offered that they
are “pro-active on social media.”
Using the director position to create a better world for people with disabilities
The top thing that state-federal VR directors believe they need to do in using their
position to create a better world for people with disabilities is to share success stories with their
state’s legislators. One director shared an example of what he does by saying “the lieutenant
governor drinks the Kool-Aid of the program and we do that with the stories. We are sending up
the phenomenal stories of how lives are transformed, individuals that were on SSI, SSDI, or had
no hope and then they connect with DVR and they have a future, they have jobs.” Other
directors mentioned attending conferences and sharing information; having high expectations of
their staff, being in leadership positions with organizations such as CSAVR, being fiscally
responsible, creating in-house training such as “new VR counselor training,” expanding
programs by doing things such as creating additional Project Search sites, and developing grant
opportunities with partners. Being transparent and doing no harm was the motto of one director
who mentioned that “my personal mission is to do no harm and to really make sure that we are
staying true to our mission but also doing, you know, we have some very specific core values
57
that we live by and to make sure that, you know, we’re doing right by, you know, being as
transparent as possible, honoring, respecting, being responsible, being fiscally responsible and
doing the right thing and, but recognizing we’re going to make mistakes but we’ve got to make
sure that our decisions are not harming other individuals.” State-federal VR directors were using
their positions to develop memorandums of understanding (MOU) for fund-sharing with
programs such the Veterans Administration (VA). Directors were attending meetings with
partners, meetings about the unified state plan, pulling Workforce partners together to help them
understand partner programs, serving on committees throughout the state, modeling what is
expected of staff, and being a strong advocate. As one director stated about using their position:
“State directors are time-limited and have to make choices” about how they use their position to
create that better world for people with disabilities.
State Director Activities
Resources needed to be a successful state director
A recurring theme has been the loss of the Technical Assistance and Continuing
Education Centers (TACE). Directors mourn the loss of the TACE centers and would like help
with additional technical assistance. One director summed it up this way: “Really appreciated
the fact that we had [a regional TACE], when we had our regional partners I could call up and
we’d have somebody in the [TACE] office if we needed to [talk through an issue], and I don’t
see that anymore.” One director would like to see faster, more accurate responses from RSA.
Some of the directors would like to see regional forums developed where they can talk with other
state-federal VR directors in their regions. The ability to attend trainings and conferences was
seen as a plus. Support internally was seen as critical in many ways, including for the ability to
increase match to bring down federal funds.
58
Directors mentioned training in a number of ways. One director talked about needing
new models that connect the agency with the outside world and inside the agency; another
mentioned the leadership program at Interwork from San Diego State University and CSAVR’s
New Director training. A quote from one director mentioned that he could use “anything that
connects me to what’s going on in the outside world, and within VR, but also, I really, I like
looking and scanning for models that transfer over to VR services, that kind of out-of-the-box
thinking. So I like to challenge myself, as well as staff with that kind of thinking. So resources
are what help me access that information.” Resources for training all staff were mentioned as a
need. Other directors discussed needing to obtain mentors, surrounding themselves with others
in the field who know more than they do, protecting the resources they have and acquiring more
money for training. One director said he has all the resources and training he needed.
Activities for agency success
Training, in order for the agency to be successful, was mentioned by a number of the
directors. One director put it this way: “I think that is critical that people partake in that.”
Development of a pre-employment training program for customers was thought to be helpful in
carrying out agency activities by another director. Other directors mentioned collaborating with
disability groups, and one director reported having access to the Institute for Community
Inclusion (ICI) and their Job-Driven Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center
(JDVRTAC), which resides in their region. With the closing of the TACE centers, that state-
federal VR director was grateful that one of the new centers was close enough for them to utilize.
Collaborating with other state directors was seen as helpful. Assuring consistent statewide
policy interpretation, understanding partner roles and services, consistently educating legislators
for help with additional match, and promoting the advancement of people with disabilities has
59
helped with agency success. One director offered on this topic: “Resources are not diminishing,
they’ve just never been here. So what we’re doing is, you know, developing our own
relationships with those folks that are here.”
State-federal VR director training and learning communities
Learning from other state-federal VR directors was seen as a necessary form of training.
One of the newer directors offered, “I’ve had a lot of individualized one-on-one training and
have created kind of my own little cohort of other state directors that I reach out to on a pretty
consistent basis.” Five out of the 12 directors have attended the CSAVR New Directors training,
three attended training put on by their TACE center in the past, and three have attended
leadership training put on by Interwork in San Diego. Directors were highly complimentary of
both the CSAVR New Directors training and the leadership training put on by Interwork. A few
of the directors obtain information from experienced staff. There was concern that there is no
one place to go for training anymore, referring to the closing of the TACE centers. Another
director has gone through their state’s leadership training and one director offered that they had
received no training.
Decision-making over personnel and finances
Eleven of the 12 state-federal VR directors believe they have decision-making authority
over personnel and budget. One state-federal VR director believed they have influence, but not
direct authority over personnel and budget matters.
Agency Policies
Upholding the letter and the spirit of the law
The majority, nine out of 12, of directors believe their agency’s policy is designed to meet both
the law and regulations and also benefit the person receiving the services. In terms of policy,
60
one state director summed it up by saying, “we’re also trying to make it incredibly congruent and
making sure that we have our consumers in mind along with what we’re trying to accomplish.
So to answer your question, yes, we are definitely, I mean, that’s why we’re here, is to serve
individuals with disabilities so we have to ensure that we don’t restrict our policy to the place
where that’s prohibitive.” Two of the directors thought their policies are written to support the
regulations and one director offered that their policy “is a work in progress.” Some other
comments by directors included developing policies that “meet you (i.e., customers) where you
are,” one offered that policy was “consumer-driven,” and one said that there is a financial needs
test as part of their policy. One agency director mentioned developing policy around braided
funding with behavioral health. Another director mentioned he writes all the policy for the
agency and bases it on the federal law. The 15% set-aside for transition services was seen as a
policy concern by four of the 12 directors interviewed.
Factors related to development of financial policies
Stakeholder involvement in policy decisions was mentioned by two directors. Two of the
directors shared that they developed their policies in-house. Directors were trying to be creative
and one noted that they had developed “a code to pay for discovery.” While one director writes
the policy for his agency, other directors offered that they develop policy by bringing together
committees of various staff.
Efforts around localizing decision-making
In the majority of agencies, eight out of 12, VR counselors have the authority to
determine client authorizations. Four of the agencies allow VR counselors to authorize only up
to a certain amount before requiring approval from a supervisor. Three directors said that the
61
ability to authorize funds for client services depends on the level of the counselor. One state-
federal VR director signs off on all post-secondary educational plans that are written by her staff.
One director disperses client services money regionally via quarterly allocations. Four of
the agencies hold their budgets at the state level to draw from, while others provide budgets to
districts or regions and some directly to the VR counselor. One state-federal VR director put it
this way, “There’s not an individual budget that they have to comply with. We track the budget
at the state level. We have one state overall budget of case services, so each area office provides
services until we cut off statewide.”
Staffing and Training
Attitudes, knowledge, skills and abilities needed by staff
Seven out of 12 of the state-federal VR directors would like staff they can train into
positions. Almost half, five out of 12 of the directors, require master’s degrees for their VR
counseling staff. Three of the other directors prefer a master’s degree for their counseling staff.
Four directors hire at the bachelor’s level and of those that hire at that level, three require those
staff to get their master’s degree within a certain timeframe. As one director put it, the “senior
counselor position is obtained upon successful completion of a master’s degree and CRC
certification.” Another director mentioned that staff getting a master’s degree was their goal. A
different state-federal VR director mentioned a preference for the LPC for counseling staff. A
director summed up her thoughts this way, “we do not have an absolute standard that they have
to have a master’s. However, that is preferential hiring for those that have a master’s and then
have the CRC. We do have some bachelor-level counselors.”
Several of the directors offered thoughts on the knowledge, skills and attitudes they
would like staff to have. Those include, having a positive outlook, being public service-minded,
62
and having good communication, as well as having good computer skills. One director
mentioned that they need staff who are willing to go above and beyond. As one director put it, “I
think in terms of counselors, I love for them to have, you know, really open minds. I love for
them to have really positive outlooks. I like them to have really good problem-solving skills. I
like them to be fairly quick thinking on their feet.” Common sense was also mentioned as a
necessary attribute.
Certification of VR counselors
Half, six out of 12, of the VR agency directors said that being a Certified Rehabilitation
Counselor (CRC) was not required. Of those, two directors said they had no training dollars
available to support the staff being CRC or CRC eligible. Three directors mentioned that
counselors should be CRC, three directors said it should be a goal to strive for and two others
offered that they see the CRC as “preferred.” One director thought having the CRC should be
part of a career ladder for counselors.
Support and funding for training and personnel development
Four state-federal VR directors allocate a training budget each year for staff training.
Three directors use regular 110 dollars, state-federal allotments, for training, and three other
directors said their agency invests in training for a career ladder for staff. One director offered
that they “absorb that [training] in our general fund, which is what we’ve been doing. We’re
lucky. We have a very decent training and travel budget. We have a training staff.” Not all
directors had those kinds of resources and one used cost-reimbursement dollars to fund training
at their agency. Another director admitted they need to do more planning around training issues.
Two directors offered that it is a challenge to provide support for training. One director said that
63
he funds motivational interviewing in this agency and another offered that the DSA invests in
leadership training for staff.
64
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to provide an in-depth examination of the research
question, “How do state-federal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program
and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their agencies’ success in
light of the changes occurring in the field?” Simon (1991) wrote that the question needing to be
proposed to rehabilitation leaders is “what options are most needed and practical to insure that
most or all (i.e., consumers) can perform these critical jobs when they enter them and throughout
their tenure” (Simon, 1991, p.2 09). He went on to say, “The most formidable obstacle to
rehabilitation efforts to fulfill its function to the fullest lies with creating capable, effective
leadership” (Saleh, 1991, p. 212). Participants identified for inclusion this study came state-
federal VR directors leading higher-functioning VR agencies, based on three years of RSA 911
data, from combined or general VR agencies in the continental United States. Thirteen state
agencies were identified meeting the establish criteria. Of those, 12 directors agreed to
participate. A semi-structured interview guide was used to guide the interviews.
Vision of the Future under WIOA
The responses to the research question in this study, “How do state-federal VR directors
view the future of the public rehabilitation program and what resources do they believe they need
to create or to enhance their agencies’ success in light of the changes occurring in the field?”
were examined to first look at the director responses and the themes coming from those
responses, and then to consider the implications of the responses in light of the vision of the
future that the federal funding partner, RSA, has put forth for state-federal VR agencies to meet
in order to be in compliance under WIOA legislation moving into the future.
65
In order to continue to address the employment the outlook for people with disabilities, in
2014 Congress passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (H.R. 803, 2014).
Title IV of the WIOA legislation authorizing state-federal VR agencies is overseen by the
Rehabilitation Services Administration. The RSA technical assistance circular, RSA-TAC-15-
01, discussed the spirit and intent of WIOA, and the characteristics required of VR agencies have
been grouped into three functional categories. Those categories are (1) Customer Service, (2)
Innovation and Service Design, and (3) Systems Integration and High Quality Staffing. In the
interviews, the state-federal VR directors addressed their vision of the future of the VR program.
The implications of the director responses were examined and those themes that were addressed
by the directors during the interviews generally fell in line with the functional categories outlined
by RSA. The implications of this study will be examined in light of the data collected from the
state-federal VR directors that speak to the future of the VR program, including areas that were
addressed that can also be found in the technical assistance circular.
RSA is encouraging states to adopt the vision outlined in the RSA-TAC-15-01 and build
that vision into the “policies and procedures related to the management of the one-stop delivery
system.” On August 13, 2015, after the interviews for this study were completed, OSERS
through RSA sent out to state-federal VR agencies Technical Assistance Circular RSA-TAC-15-
01 (Appendix H) on their “Vision for the One-Stop Delivery System under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).” Separate guidance will be issued by the Department
of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration and the Department of Education’s Office
of Career, Technical and Adult Education to their grantees who are partners in the workforce
development system. As stated in the summary section of the circular, “WIOA increases the
accountability of core WIOA programs, including the VR program, to place emphasis on
66
promoting better alignment among Federal job training programs.” This vision reinforces the
findings from the state-federal VR director interviews that partnerships and strategies are
necessary for one-stop centers to provide job seekers and workers with the high-quality career
services, education and training, and supportive services they need to obtain good jobs and stay
employed; and to help businesses find skilled workers and access other supports, including
education and training for their current workforce.”
During the interviews, the state-federal VR directors were acutely aware of looking at
their agencies in light of the new WIOA legislation. Their responses took into consideration the
changes their agencies are undergoing to position their agencies to be responsive to the new
mandates of WIOA. It was evident during the interviews that directors are immersed in finding
ways to be successful and manage their staff and partnerships in light of what they are expecting
is the new normal and this appeared to heavily influence the conversations. This new normal
includes changing their organizational culture to move from operating as hierarchical entities that
are focused on the internal organization and control (Millington & Schulz, 2009) to agencies that
create learning environments that support staff in implementing best practices that lead to greater
organizational success (Tuft, 2012). These state-federal VR directors are attempting to become
transformational leaders who see a need for change, create a new vision and obtain a
commitment from followers for organizational change (Rijal, 2010).
Customer Service
State-federal VR directors believe they serve two sets of customers, the consumer with
the disability and businesses looking for trained employees. “Despite the development and
enhancement of public policies promoting workforce development and employment participation
over the past three decades, individuals with disabilities continue to experience disparate
67
workforce participation rates and lower earnings than their non-disabled peers” (Golden et al.,
2012, p. 16). As one VR director stated, it is about “how we connect with our job candidates and
how we connect with our business partners and our community providers, so it’s about building
relationships.” In discussing customers, there was recognition that in order to meet the mandates
of WIOA some agencies need to focus more on business customers to be successful in a one-stop
environment. An example of recognition of that fact came from a director who stated, “we have
not focused upon our other consumer, which is the employers, and so one of the things I’ve
learned going back to CSAVR a couple of months ago and going to D.C. was that we really need
to rethink that.” Another director mentioned that the “emphasis in WIOA [is] on treating
employers as customers as well as people with disabilities is a positive.” Increased collaboration
with partners and helping staff take ownership of the changes occurring through WIOA was a
recurrent theme in the interviews that fall in line with the RSA guidance to “develop, offer, and
deliver business services that assist specific businesses and industry sectors in overcoming the
challenges of recruiting, retaining, and developing talent for the regional economy” (RSA-TAC-
15-01, 2015). Nine of the 12 directors felt a stronger connection with the business community,
while maintaining a focus on people with disabilities creates a positive outlook for state-federal
VR programs. In terms of customer services one director suggested that it was important to
“focus on providing an empowering, effective and efficient customer service experience.”
While VR agencies in the past primarily focused on the individual with the disability, all
of the state-federal VR directors emphasized with new urgency on the need to work with the
business customers. Agencies expressed need for increasing the number of staff who work with
business. At the same time, there was also an appreciation of the counselor’s role and
recognition that serving clients with disabilities is the reason the agency exists and their mandate
68
of increasing services for transition customers. In an age of increased accountability, directors
realize they must create organizational cultures that lead to learning organizations that utilize
evidence-based practices in serving both types of customers (Daniels, 1997).
Innovation and Service Design
Changing the internal culture of the VR agency was thought to be necessary to create an
environment open to innovation and the ability to affect effective service designs. Culture is the
“medium through which leadership travels and impacts organizational performance” (Packard,
2009, p. 154). An organization’s culture guides the organization’s behavior (Giberson et al.,
2009). In an age of accountability, state-federal VR directors must develop organizational
climates that create learning organization and utilize evidence-based practices (Daniels, 1997).
Schultz (2008) noted that culture was the collective practices of the organization. He stated that,
“organizations thrive when the organizational culture facilitates buy-in, creativity, and personal
involvement of professional staff” (p. 40). Organizational culture is one of the management
tools available to leaders of organizations that can shape employee performance (Giberson et al.,
2009; Lincoln, 2010; Sherman et al., 2014). “Culture can influence employee views of what is
and what is not important, it allows an individual to develop knowledge that can impact
organizational learning, and it creates processes by which knowledge is created, approved and
distributed” (Sherman et al., 2014). Executive leadership sets the tone to create cultures that
have the potential to transform agencies into learning organizations and that empower staff
towards innovation. Leadership continuity will also become a highly significant factor in the
sustainability of these types of enabling organizational cultures.
State-federal VR directors understand that staff roles must be clearly defined within the
one-stop system and training of VR staff not only on the WIOA legislation but on workforce
69
partner roles will be necessary. Some VR agencies are already becoming “intermingled” in the
physical space of the one-stop centers. One director had a goal of no longer having standalone
VR offices. In developing the required service design, one director offered, “we endorse the
sharing of resources not just in money but in people and how we work.” As state-federal VR
agencies become increasingly involved with one-stops within a workforce environment,
transitioning state VR agencies from administrative entities (Herbert, 2004; Herbert & Trusty,
2006; Schultz, 2007; Schultz, 2008; Bezyak, Ososkie, Trice & Yeager, 2010) into learning
organizations that develop and promote evidence-based service delivery practices is necessary to
enhance program outcomes and create environments that facilitate innovation. Learning
organizations develop new knowledge and insight from the common experiences of their
employees and have the potential to promote positive behaviors and improve the organization’s
capabilities (Sanz-Valle, Naranjo-Valencia, Jimenez-Jimenez & Perez-Caballero, 2011).
Seven of the 12 state-federal VR directors are preparing for common indicators by
working on creating computer systems that allow for common intake, with one director stating,
“we would like to see a common intake established out here so that if a person walks in, mental
health or Department of Family Services or whatever, they would complete an intake form, and
if they were in the wrong spot, they could just walk over to VR and we would have that
information available and be able to identify him or her early on.” Another director said, “I
really see the VR program taking advantage more of technologies.” The RSA-TAC-15-01
circular mentions using an integrated and expert intake process for all customers. State-federal
VR directors will need to lead their agencies to develop software solutions not just internally and
among workforce partners, but also for access to services in order to create RSA’s vision of
service delivery that is both virtual and center-based.
70
Half of the directors were concerned about lack of technical assistance due to the loss of
their regional TACE center, which could impact RSA’s vision particularly around
implementation of innovative and evidence-based delivery models. As a director said, we
“appreciated the fact that we had, when we had our regional partners I could call up and we’d
have somebody in office if we needed to, and I don’t see that anymore.” It will become
increasingly important for VR agencies to create cultures of adhocracy that recognize that
innovation and change are necessary in order to enable organizations to take charge of shaping
their own futures (Giberson et al., 2009).
Systems Integration and High-Quality Staffing
Collaboration and partnership were consistent themes among the directors interviewed.
Vision, values and creativity should be used in setting direction by leaders (Daniels, 1997). The
RSA-TAC-15-01 circular also outlines a vision that reflects the establishment of partnership
among partners. One director noted that his agency is “moving out of our isolated silos and
really talking about how are we part of, how are we integrated into a larger system and are we
creating value for that system.” Another director summed it up this way, “agencies are going to
have an opportunity to go where we need to go and that’s provide services as early as possible
for students with disabilities and become more intrinsically involved with the workforce
investment system as well as the educational system.” A director mentioned the need to
“connect with our job candidates and how we connect with our business partners and our
community providers, so it’s about building relationships.” State-federal VR directors are
increasing their collaborations and partnerships with one-stop partners and other partners such as
those in the business community, educational and mental health systems.
71
Four of the directors mentioned partnering to increase efficiencies. One director
discussed his goal of completely moving his offices in to the one-stops and developing
opportunities to share resources and equipment such as copiers for the office, not tied to any one
program. Four directors in this study are beginning to look at how this might work for their
agencies, especially for those staff located within one-stops. The RSA circular includes a vision
that partners in the one-stop organize and integrate services by function.
Providing training to partners was seen as critical in developing joint service strategies as
one director offered that they need to “provide them with training and understanding so they
don’t automatically see someone with a disability.” Two of the directors interviewed for this
study mentioned needing additional business account managers or business consultant staff and
this would tie into the RSA vision of developing business services teams. Concerns around the
one-stop partners included fears they won’t serve people with disabilities not needing
individualized services.
Five of the directors are looking at ways to update their case-management systems. A
variety of systems are in use, including individually developed single-state systems. One
director is working on creating an integrated case-management system with workforce partners
that is in line with RSA’s vision of developing an “integrated case-management system that
allows the sharing of customer information among the partners working with the individual
being served” (RSA-TAC-15-01). A director of one state-federal VR agency offered his vision
as it relates to integrated computer systems and common intake: “We would like to see a
common intake established out here so that if a person walks in, mental health or Department of
Family Services or whatever, they would complete an intake form, and if they were in the wrong
72
spot, they could just walk over to VR and we would have that information available and be able
to identify him or her early on.”
Given the variety of computer and case-management systems that VR agencies have, it
will take a concerted effort, as well as funding, to develop updated systems that interact
seamlessly with Workforce partners. Providing additional funding to make needed IT
infrastructure and software upgrades is something that RSA might consider to help implement its
vision. Though costs have increased, since the early 1990s state-federal rehabilitation agencies
have essentially been level-funded (O’Brien & Graham, 2009). State-federal VR agencies have
limited resources and the 12 agencies interviewed ranged from one director needing no
additional resources to other agencies that feel stretched to capacity. There has always been “a
need to balance existing need against available resources” (Shaw, 1997, p. 296).
Common performance indicators were mentioned by directors and in the RSA circular.
Concerns around implementation were expressed by one director. Six of the 12 directors felt
they could use more guidance from RSA around changes that need to be implemented.
Specifically, one director wanted “faster and more accurate responses from RSA.”
Training for VR agency staff and Workforce partners was thought to be necessary by a
number of the state-federal VR directors. Assuring all one-stop center staff is cross-training is a
goal in RSA’s vision. Having the resources to train staff and partners is a concern. As one
director put it, it is “kind of an irritant for me. The relationship we had with our TACE was
really remarkable, as with the RCEPS before that, but TACE especially, a couple of the staff of
the TACE were retired state administrators that I knew and they provided an awful lot of our
training at the in-services, but they were just an excellent resource if we had questions or wanted
to, you know, just round-table an issue. And losing the TACE was a big blow.” While three of
73
the directors mentioned having some training staff, one director stated that he has one staff
member who did training for the entire agency. In the age WIOA, training dollars used for staff
development will now be part of an agency’s general allotment and, of the agency’s allotment,
15% is now required to be set aside for pre-employment transition services (Schroeder, 2014).
When asked how they currently fund training, one agency director said it was a work in
progress, a few others plan to set money aside in their budgets, while another director uses
reimbursement dollar from Social Security to fund training in his agency. The VR directors said
that they are working to educate Workforce partners about VR and people with disabilities at the
meetings they have been attending. Thought and planning will need to go into how trainings for
VR staff and partners are funded and what resources are needed to best provide the necessary
training both internally and externally. Today, state-federal VR directors must find creative
ways to fund the programs and training opportunities they need and inspire their staff. Creation
of a culture that promotes a learning organization is necessary to bring out the best in employees
and encourages staff to enhance their skills and performance, which encourages shared
knowledge and expertise to improve the organization.
Implications for State-Federal VR Directors
Collaboration and partnerships were consistent themes expressed by the directors
interviewed for this study. The Technical Assistance Circular RSA-TAC-15-0, released in
August 2015, provides RSA’s vision for collaboration and partnership in a seamless operating
one-stop center, having both in-person and virtual services for customers, which incorporates the
services on all core WIOA partners. In order to meet their expectations under WIOA, most of
the directors in this study have already begun meeting with partners to work out MOUs and, in
some cases, the physical space requirements to co-locate. State-federal VR directors around the
74
country need to take on the challenges of WIOA, as they work together with partners on a
combined state plan and common performance indicators. Integrated case-management systems
for one-stop access will require VR agencies review their IT systems and, in many instances,
fund and acquire more up-to-date systems and software.
Culture is the “medium through which leadership travels and impacts organizational
performance” (Packard, 2009, p. 154). Culture is closely tied to an organization’s top leadership.
In order to make the changes in their agencies, some of the directors in this study discussed the
need to change the internal cultures of the organizations they lead. Leadership that facilitates a
culture that allows for the creation of a learning organization encourages the development,
acquisition, transformation, and dissemination of new knowledge that can foster innovation,
leading to effective best practices (Rijal, 2010). To succeed, directors must look at creating
adhocracy cultures that are externally focused and emphasize flexibility, adaptability and change.
This is the type of culture where teams are formed around projects and communication flows up
the chain of command. The RSA vision, outlined in their technical assistance circular, directs
VR agencies, where they can, to organize and integrate services by function rather than by
program. To do this, eight of the directors in this study mentioned the need for additional FTEs
to hire more permanent business account consultants. Culture change, as some directors pointed
out, also requires training of both staff and partners, which requires funding and training
resources.
All the directors in this study expressed the need to work with two sets of customers, the
person with a disability and the employer community. VR agency directors should focus on and
develop effective ways to interact and partner with the business community. Some VR agencies,
by their own admission, seemed to do a better job with this than others. Clearly, the intent of the
75
WIOA legislation is to create stronger ties with the business community and the RSA-TAC-15-
01 vision states that programs need to “enable businesses and employers to easily identify and
hire skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current
workforce.” VR directors need to find ways to obtain the resources needed within their budgets
to effectively serve the business community’s needs. There has always been “a need to balance
existing need against available resources” (Shaw, 1997, p. 296).
The state-federal VR directors in this study all agreed that training for directors should be
ongoing. The loss of the regional TACE centers has created a void in a place where directors
could go for knowledgeable advice and training. Directors should continue to stay involved with
CSAVR training activities and especially CSAVR’s New Director training. The VR directors
interviewed who had been through the CSAVR New Director training all thought highly of it and
believed it had been worthwhile.
Implications for Rehabilitation Counselor Educators
Training for staff has been problematic, due to the loss of the TACE centers, with no
readily available nearby resources for most but not all agencies. Directors continue to value staff
with rehabilitation background and prefer a master’s degree for VR counselors. While the CRC
is not required in half the agencies interviewed, most thought it was a good idea. One-third of
the agencies interviewed said they hire with a bachelor’s degree in certain areas and some
provide for a career ladder that includes a master’s degree.
There is a need for staff with a background in rehabilitation counseling. Four of the 12
directors have created career ladders for those with bachelor’s degrees, in order to encourage
counselors to obtain their master’s degrees in rehabilitation counseling. For those individuals
hired with master’s degrees in a related field, it would be helpful for educators to create
76
opportunities for those individuals to obtain the needed courses in order to be eligible for the
CRC exam. While at least two directors preferred hiring those with a CRC, three directors
believed it should be a goal for which counselors strive. Funding for master’s degrees, obtaining
and maintaining the CRC and continuing education for certification maintenance continue to be
concerns for many VR agencies. Because a culture of continuous learning is necessary for
organizations to have the “ability to meet the changing needs in rehabilitation service delivery”
(Schultz, 2007), educators should work with state-federal VR directors on developing programs
and funding for needed coursework to assure VR agency staff have the knowledge needed to
successfully work with individuals with disabilities. Educators should consider working with
VR agencies on developing educational programming for individuals hired at the bachelor’s
level as business consultants, as they are responsible for creating employment opportunities with
business customers.
One VR director said he developed a list of knowledge, skills and abilities he would like
for his staff to have. The other directors identified specific attributes they value in employees,
such as being open-minded, having good communication skills, being public service-minded,
being fairly quick-thinking on their feet, having common sense, having problem-solving skills,
having computer skills and being willing to go above and beyond in their jobs. One director also
mentioned a need to have a more diverse workforce in the agency. Because culture change is an
integrative process, successful state-federal agencies will need to consider moving from
traditionally hierarchical culture, with a focus on control, to a culture of adhocracy where the
focus is on flexibility, risk-taking, partnerships and innovation (Sherman et al., 2014).
77
Implications for Policymakers and Funders
Though costs have increased, since the early 1990s state-federal rehabilitation agencies
have essentially been level-funded (O’Brien & Graham, 2009). Some state-federal VR directors
are experiencing difficulty with implementation, as well as administrative burdens, due to PET.
The 15% set-aside affects some agencies more than others. Clarity is need around how the 15%
set-aside for transition services will be measured. Additional concerns were around being level-
funded and budget constraints, maintenance of efforts requirements and state match concerns. In
the study interviews, there were also some concerns about unfunded WIOA requirements, and
concerns with sub-minimum wage requirements.
Working with WIOA partners and providing those partners with training and education
on disability were items that most agency directors felt they needed to be sure were
accomplished. Because some agency staff are already “being stretched to capacity to serve,”
more resources were seen as needed by most of the state-federal VR directors in order to meet
the goals of WIOA. Concerns about lack of technical assistance in complying with common
performance measures were mentioned, as was getting WIOA partners to service people with
disabilities that do not need VR’s individualized services. More accurate and faster responses
from RSA would be appreciated by VR directors, as all the directors interviewed have initiatives
under way to meet the mandates of the new WIOA legislation. Technology was a theme in terms
of creating integrated systems for use in a one-stop environment. VR agencies use a wide
variety of IT and case-management systems, and many will need to be upgraded in order to
comply with WIOA. Funding for IT will be critically important to enable IT infrastructure and
case-management system upgrades capable of capturing all the needed WIOA data elements and
allow for common intake with WIOA partners. The vision for WIOA outlined in the TAC-RSA-
78
15-01 also includes VR agency ability to provide customer access to services in one-stop centers
and virtually. Funding may be needed to bring computer systems up-to-date for case-
management systems and IT infrastructure that will allow for client access, where appropriate.
Currently, state-federal VR agencies are working with limited funding to make those computer
system upgrades and changes. RSA should consider ways to help state-federal VR agencies
acquire funding to upgrade or replace out-of-date computer and case-management systems with
WIOA-compliant systems.
Training is another area where many, but not all, agency directors are struggling to find
funding and resources. The closing of the regional TACE centers was a recurring theme. VR
directors discussed feeling the loss of having nearby expert technical assistance that is no longer
available and has not been replaced. In addition to losing the training grants for staff training,
the loss of this resource has been especially difficult as directors seek assistance with WIOA
implementation. As one director put it, “losing the TACE centers was a blow to training.”
Directors are looking at innovative ways, such as using cost reimbursement, to fund training
initiatives. Much training needs to be done with internal staff and external partners regarding
WIOA. Creating cultures that transform agencies into learning organizations will be a necessary
step for state-federal VR agencies in empowering staff towards innovation. While only half the
agencies interviewed require a CRC for counseling staff, most directors saw value in staff
obtaining a master’s degree, and certification as a CRC was preferred. Agencies hiring at the
bachelor’s level would like additional funding to help their staff in obtaining higher education in
rehabilitation counseling. The Rehabilitation Services Administration and other funders should
consider ways to help state-federal VR agencies with funding for training activities, including
training for internal staff, external partners and the funding of master’s degrees in rehabilitation
79
counseling. Additional consideration should be given to funding and maintenance activities for
staff to obtain and maintain their Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, the identified
gold standard for rehabilitation counselors working with people with disabilities.
Implications for Rehabilitation Researchers
“The challenges of vocational rehabilitation have never been more evident, nor the need
for more and better VR services been greater” (McMahon & Chan, 2011, p. 189). Fiscal,
legislative, and leadership changes at the state and federals levels have over time changed the
field of rehabilitation services (McFarlane et al., 2011). “Understanding the industry” (Atkinson,
1997, p. 251) is critical to moving rehabilitation agencies forward. Shaw, Leahy and Catalano
(2006) noted that “challenges to the profession of rehabilitation counseling have frequently been
cited in the rehabilitation counseling literature.” With the passage in 2014 of the new WIOA
legislation, state-federal VR agencies will be required to increase collaboration and partnerships
at a time of level or decreasing funding for agencies. At the same time, two of the 12 agency
directors have already left or retired and a third director will be retiring in the near future.
Changes are occurring in the make-up of directors, as more will continue to retire and be
replaced with newer, less experienced directors. Programs like CSAVR’s New Director training
and San Diego State’s Interwork program are valued by directors, who hope they will continue.
As changes come to state-federal VR agencies and directors are replaced, it is important to study
what these changes mean to the field of rehabilitation and what training and education will be
needed by the VR directors of the future. Few studies have been done specifically looking at
state-federal VR directors and how they view the VR program. The need for more studies with
VR directors and their implementation of the new WIOA legislation is necessary to determine
the impact of WIOA on VR agencies and those they serve. There is a need for more research on
80
evidence-based practices and how VR agencies can utilize and monitor the effectiveness of EBP
in practice in order to achieve more successful outcomes, particularly with the increased
emphasis on transition. Research will be needed to measure effectiveness of the culture change
occurring within state-federal VR agencies in order to provide the empirical evidence needed to
determine if changes in the VR program are leading to greater agency success.
Study Limitations
This study looked at 12 state-federal VR directors, those individuals charged with
carrying out the mandates and goals of the state-federal VR program, from general or combined
agencies in the continental United States. The agency directors selected for this study lead VR
agencies defined as higher-performing, based on published data from the FY 2011, 2012 and
2013 RSA federal indicators. This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the
state-federal VR program from the director’s perspective and to determine how these directors
see the future of the public VR program. There are several limitations to be noted.
The study has addressed the perspective of only 12 state-federal VR directors leading
agencies in the continental United States. While these 12 directors are or were in charge of the
identified higher-performing agencies, it must be noted that not all of the directors interviewed
were leading their agencies during the time of the three years of data used to define the sample
for this study. In addition, two of the directors interviewed are no longer leading their agencies.
One director has retired since the interview and one director was in an acting capacity and has
since been replaced. The perspectives of the directors interviewed cannot be generalized as the
perspective of all directors leading state-federal VR programs. The RSA Technical Assistance
Circular (RSA-TAC-15-01) discussing RSA’s vision for the one-stop system under WIOA came
81
out on August 13, 2015, and therefore was not available as a roadmap for agencies at the time the
interviews took place.
The researcher conducting the study worked for over 28 years in the state-federal VR
program and was in management at a state-federal VR agency for 20 of those years. Qualitative
research design allows the researcher to be highly involved in the actual experiences of the
participants and develop a level of detail about an individual or place. Qualitative research, in
general, is subject to personal biases and this study is no exception. Because the researcher was
familiar with state-federal VR agency operations, the respondents may have felt more
comfortable in sharing information they knew would be understood. Familiarity with state-
federal agency operations may have enabled the researcher to ask probes to questions that other
researchers may not have asked due to researcher familiarity. On the other hand, because the
researcher was known as a former state administrator, there may have been answers to questions
that were not given depending on the comfort level of the director.
The researcher discussed personal biases regularly with her advisor and mentor to assist
with recognition of her biases. Two Ph.D.-level educators/researchers were enlisted to help with
independent coding of the data collected, as well as theme development, to increase reliability
and validity of the research findings. A Ph.D.-level educator/researcher audited the study
throughout the process, providing feedback on the entire study.
Conclusion
This study sought to understand the challenges and needs of the state-federal VR program
from the director’s perspective and to determine how these directors see the future of the public
VR program. McFarlane, Schroeder and Enriquez (2014) wrote that the challenge is to ensure
continuity in our government support systems for workforce development that addresses both the
82
unique needs of the individual with a disability and the organizational systems through which
public policies are carried out. The findings from this study may be able to assist stakeholders in
understanding and developing resources and supports that state-federal VR directors believe are
needed in order to successfully operate public VR programs into the future. The study may be
useful in helping administrators of state-federal VR agencies gain insights that could potentially
enhance the future of the public rehabilitation program. It will be important to continue to
examine “How do state-federal VR directors view the future of the public rehabilitation program
and what resources do they believe they need to create or to enhance their agencies’ success in
light of the changes occurring in the field?” as WIOA implementation continues.
Sherman et al. found that leaders of successful VR agencies “emphasize the use of
outcome-focused business models by adopting organizational innovations and harnessing
advances in information technologies to deliver outcomes that individuals, communities and
society at large value” (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 151). Several directors interviewed for this
study believe that culture change will need to occur within their agencies to set the stage for
innovative service delivery within the Workforce system. Executive leadership sets the tone to
create cultures that have the potential to transform agencies into learning organizations and that
empower staff towards innovation. VR directors will need to look at how their agencies, as part
of a one stop-service delivery system, can best provide evidence-based services to two sets of
customers in order to increase successful outcomes, with metrics to measure results.
Funding continues to be a concern facing state-federal rehabilitation agency directors.
Training grant dollars previously used for staff development will now become part of an
agency’s general allotment. More training is needed for VR staff and Workforce partners at a
time when training budgets have merged into agency general budgets and regional TACE centers
83
are no longer being funded. It will be important to develop resources for training and technical
assistance that will allow expert advice by entities that understand the various VR agencies’
specific needs.
VR agencies are now required to set aside 15% of their budgets for pre-employment
transition services (Schroeder, 2014). Several directors discussed their concerns over WIOA
PET mandates that are “forcing us to reallocate resources to schools and the delivery of those
services.” Funding may be needed for hiring additional staff, including business consultants, to
work more closely with employer customers.
Technology improvements will be needed by many state-federal VR agencies in order to
meet the RSA vision in TAC-RSA-15-01 to “Use an integrated and expert intake process for all
customers entering the one-stop centers.” Systems that collect the necessary RSA data, allow for
common intake, and that can be accessed by customers in a virtual environment are
improvements expected by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. Today, many state-
federal VR agencies are using a variety of case-management and IT infrastructure systems,
including some that are “homegrown” systems. Updating computer hardware and software can
be expensive purchases for VR agency budgets. Thought and planning will need to go into the
funding and updating VR agency IT hardware and software systems.
Collaboration and partnership development were themes throughout the VR director
interviews. McFarlane et al. suggest that the leadership question of our time is about how state-
federal VR directors lead during “times of substantive changes with enormously challenging
fiscal realities” (McFarlane et al., 2011, p. 5). It is the expectation of RSA’s vision of VR
agencies that those agencies participate in “robust partnership among partners.” The VR
directors in this study discussed the need for many collaborative partnerships with not only
84
WIOA partners, but also with school systems and vendors who provide services to VR
customers. Providing VR agencies with technical assistance in their collaboration efforts, and
the training of their partners, should be part of any plan to assist VR agencies in successfully
implementing the WIOA vision and creating a sustainable future for state-federal VR programs.
VR agencies would be well served by developing an organizational culture of adhocracy
that facilitates transformational learning, creating learning organizations, particularly given the
increasing complexity of service provision and the increasing demands for successful outcomes.
Culture influences what employees view as important and not important. “Organizations thrive
when the organizational culture facilitates buy-in, creativity, and personal involvement of
professional staff” (Schultz, 2008, p. 40). The “effect of leadership behaviors on organizational
culture is important to organizational success and effectiveness” (Sherman et al., 2014, p. 115).
Transformational leaders can change and expand the interests of their followers, and generate
awareness and acceptance of the purpose and mission of the organization. The creation of such
leadership for state-federal VR agencies should enhance the ability of the organizations to
develop the infrastructure necessary to develop staff, create working partnerships and improve
customer outcomes.
Conceptual Framework with Findings
Given the findings of this study, the original framework was modified to be more
consistent with observations and comments provided by the state directors. Figure 10 represents
a revised depiction of the initial conceptual framework which shows how funding and
expectations flow through legislation to fund state-federal VR agencies, from various state,
federal and private stakeholders, and those agencies’ expectations of accountability for funding
and service provision. In order to obtain funding, there are expectations for accountability that
85
flow to the state-federal VR agency, to the VR director, through whom the organization’s culture
can create a learning organization that may enable staff to provide evidence-based services to
agency customers, thereby facilitating the opportunity (i.e., successful) outcomes, which in turn
can provide the accountability funders are expecting for continued financial support of the
legislation, enabling VR agencies to continue to provide services to agency customers.
Revisions of this framework with the findings of this study show that technology will be an
influence on the organization. Culture change will affect the entire organization as collaboration
and partnerships increase and there is increased pressure to provide services as part of the one-
stop services delivery system.
Acco
unta
bili
ty
Legislation (WIOA)
Funding Agencies
(state, federal, private stakeholders)
Fu
ndin
g a
nd
Expecta
tion
s
Resou
rces
State and Federal VR Agency
WIOA
Technology
Learning Organization
Cu
ltu
re C
ha
ng
eC
ultu
re C
ha
ng
e
VR
Staff
VR
Clients
Transformational
Leadership
VR
Directors
One-Stop
Centers
VR
Services
Part
ners
hip
sC
olla
bo
ratio
ns
Figure 10. Conceptual Framework with Findings
86
APPENDICES
87
Appendix A. Institutional Review Boards Approval
Figure 11. Institutional Review Board Online Form
88
Figure 12. IRB Approval Letter Email
89
Appendix B. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study
Figure 13. CSAVR Agreement to Support Study Email
90
Appendix C. CSAVR Research Endorsement
Figure 14. CSAVR Research Endorsement
91
Appendix D. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors
Figure 15. Study Participant Invitation Letter to VR Directors
92
Appendix E. Research Consent Form
Research Consent Form
You are being asked to take part in a research study on state-federal VR director perceptions of the
future of the VR program and its challenges and needs. We are asking you to take part in this
study because you have been identified as a state-federal VR director in charge of a high
performing agency. Please read this form carefully and email me any questions you may have
before agreeing to take part in the study.
What the study is about: The purpose of this study is to learn how state-federal VR directors
from high performing agencies view the future of the public rehabilitation program and your
perspective on the resources needed to create or enhance agency success in light of changes
occurring in the field. You must be over 18 and a state-federal VR director of a higher performing
program to participate in this study.
What we will ask you to do: If you agree to be in this study, I will conduct an interview with you
using Skype or Zoom. The interview will include questions about your perceptions of the future of
the VR program over the next decade and the resources needed to achieve that future. The
interview will take about 1 hour. With your permission, I would also like to tape-record the
interview. You will have the opportunity to comment on information we discuss once it is written
up.
Risks and benefits:
I do not anticipate any risks to you participating in this study other than those encountered in day-
to-day life.
There are no benefits to you. My hope is that this study will lead to further research and
identification of resources to help state-federal VR agencies create or enhance their agency
successes.
Compensation: There will be no compensation provided for participation in this study.
Your answers will be confidential. The records of this study will be kept private. In any sort of
report we make public we will not include any information that will make it possible to identify
you. Research records will be kept in a locked file or on the cloud; only the researchers and a
transcriptionist will have access to the records. After we tape-record the Skype or Zoom interview,
we will destroy the tape after it has been transcribed, which we anticipate will be within six
months of its taping.
Taking part is voluntary: Taking part in this study is completely voluntary. You may skip any
questions that you do not want to answer. If you decide not to take part or to skip some of the
questions, there will be no consequences. If you decide to take part, you are free to withdraw at
any time.
93
If you have questions: The researchers conducting this study are Susan Sherman and Dr. Michael
Leahy. Dr. Sara Johnston, Dr. Mary Barros-Bailey and Dr. Cayte Anderson will assist Susan
Sherman in reviewing the information collected from the transcript to insure accuracy of the data.
Please feel free to email Susan at [email protected] with any questions you might have. This
study is part of a dissertation being done at Michigan State University. The researcher, Susan
Sherman, retired as an Assistant Director with over 28 years of service in the public rehabilitation
program.
If you have questions later, you may contact Susan at [email protected] . You can reach Dr.
Michael Leahy at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights
as a subject in this study, you may contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 517-355-2180,
email them at [email protected] or access their website at http://www.humanresearch.msu.edu.
You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records. Please email Susan Sherman with
your signed consent form at [email protected].
Statement of Consent: I have read the above information, and have received answers to any
questions I asked. I consent to take part in the study.
By continuing with the interview, I voluntarily consent to participate in the research study and the
taping of the interview.
_____________________________________________________ ___________________
Participant Signature Date
This consent form will be kept by the researcher for at least three years beyond the end of the
study and was approved by the IRB on May 18, 2015.
94
Appendix F. Semi-Structured Interview Guide
Demographic Section
Name:
Title:
State:
Years in position:
Previous position:
Years with current agency:
Years in public rehabilitation:
Highest level of education:
Degree(s):
Certifications/licenses held:
1. Future of the VR Program
a. Where do you see the VR program going in in the next decade and what will it be
like?
b. What will it take to get there?
c. Are there any concerns?
2. Rehabilitation Legislation
a. In light of the recently reauthorized Rehabilitation Act as Title IV of WIOA, how
can the service delivery system be improved upon to meet the needs of people with
disabilities?
b. Do you see changes in the WIOA affecting your organization? If so, please discuss
the different ways you believe these changes will affect your agency.
95
3. Agency Actions
a. In what ways can does or can your agency maintain the values of the rehabilitation
process, while working in a larger context of collaboration and partnership as part
of an integrated workforce system?
b. What actions have you taken in striving to make your agency performance what
you believe it should be? What additional resources would assist you?
c. What resources (funding, partnerships, training, additional staff, etc.) do you
believe your organization needs to: 1) maintain the level of success you are
experiencing today, and 2) move your organizations to a higher degree of success
given your agency’s mission?
4. Societal Advancements for People with Disabilities
a. In what ways have you, or are you, positioning your agency to influence and create
a better world for people with disabilities, instead of just reacting to outside forces?
b. In what ways do you use your position as State Director to create a better world for
people with disabilities?
5. State Director Activities
a. What resources (funding, partnerships, training, education, certifications, etc.) do
you feel you need for yourself to continue being successful in your position as a
State Director?
b. What specific activities have you undertaken to position your agency to be
successful in a time of diminishing resources? What types of resources or
assistance do you believe would benefit you in carrying out those activities?
96
c. Since becoming a State Director, what training have you received? Who provided
the training? Do you believe training as a state director should be time-limited or
on-going?
6. Agency Policies
a. When policy is created in your organization, is it designed to help the organization
conform to a law or regulation or is it designed to benefit the person receiving the
services or both? Please provide some specific examples.
b. How are financial policies for the authorization of consumer services developed
and what factors are considered when making such policies?
c. What efforts, if any, are there to provide financial or other decision making at the
local level?
7. Staffing and Training
a. When selecting personnel to work in your agency, what do you believe should be
the necessary attitudes, knowledge, skills and abilities?
b. Do you believe your VR counseling staff should be certified as Certified
Rehabilitation Counselors? Why or why not?
c. How do you support and fund training and personnel development in your
organization?
97
Appendix G. Zoom Invitation
Figure 16. Zoom Meeting Invitation
98
Appendix H. RSA-TAC-15-01
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
CIRCULAR RSA-TAC-15-01
DATE: August 13, 2015
ADDRESSEES: STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
AGENCIES STATE REHABILITATION COUNCILS
CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: Vision for the One-Stop Delivery System under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
PURPOSE: This Technical Assistance Circular (TAC) lays out the vision for the one-
stop delivery system under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) and links to key technical assistance resources to support
States and local areas as they integrate this vision into their one-stop
delivery system. Separate guidance is being issued by the Department of
Labor’s Employment and Training Administration and the Department of
Education’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education to their
grantees who are partners in the workforce development system. It was
developed in collaboration with these agencies, as well as with the
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families.
WIOA, which was signed into law on July 22, 2014, is designed to help
job seekers access employment, education, training, and support
services to succeed in the labor market and to match employers with the
skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy. WIOA
supersedes titles I and II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, and
amends the Wagner-Peyser Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The Departments of Labor and Education published a set of proposed
regulations for implementing WIOA in five Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRMs) in the Federal Register on April 15, 2015, with
a 60-day public comment period. The Departments will review,
analyze, and consider the thousands of comments received in response
to the NPRMs. The Final rule will be published in 2016.
In order to assist States in implementing the requirements of WIOA prior
to the Final rules, RSA will issue a series of operating guidance in the
99
form of TACs, such as this, which will assist the Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) agencies with the important planning and
organizational work necessary to comply with the WIOA statutory
requirements. The operating guidance TACs will provide a framework
for program activities until the regulations are finalized.
REFERENCES: See Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND: The vision for the one-stop delivery system contained in this TAC reflects
the long-standing and ongoing work of dedicated workforce professionals
around the country to align a wide range of publicly and privately funded
education, employment, and training programs while also providing high-
quality customer service to job seekers, workers, and businesses through the
one-stop delivery system.
The creation of one-stop centers (currently branded as American Job
Centers) was a cornerstone of WIA when it passed in 1998. In the years
between the passage of WIA and WIOA — and longer for those
communities that piloted one-stop centers under the Job Training
Partnership Act of 1982 — the workforce system has tested a variety of
approaches to maximize the benefits of one-stop centers to its direct
customers and their communities. In the last 10 years, technological
advancements have opened up new avenues of service delivery, and the
increased availability of evidence-based models has strengthened our
shared understanding of the best of these approaches. In addition, the
Obama Administration worked intensively with federal agencies in 2013
and 2014 to reform federal employment, education, and training programs
to create a more integrated, job-driven service delivery system. A job-
driven service delivery system is one that results in linking our nation’s
diverse talent with employers and businesses. As a result of this work,
one-stop centers continue to be a valued community resource, known both
locally and nationally as an important source of assistance for those
looking for work or workers, and those looking for opportunities to grow
their careers.
WIOA recognizes the value of the one-stop delivery system, and provides
the workforce system with important tools to enhance the quality of its
one-stop centers. The law strengthens the ability of States, regions, and
local areas to align investments in workforce, education, and economic
development to regional in-demand jobs. It also places greater emphasis
on achieving results for job seekers, workers, and businesses. Finally, it
reinforces the partnerships and strategies necessary for one-stop centers to
provide job seekers and workers with the high-quality career services,
education and training, and supportive services they need to obtain good
jobs and stay employed; and to help businesses find skilled workers and
access other supports, including education and training for their current
100
workforce.
101
Since the one-stop delivery system was established, technology has made
lasting changes to our economy and society. Mobile workers and
businesses with regional and national footprints that cross municipal
borders are much more common. For that reason, there is an increased
customer demand for consistent, high-quality education, employment, and
training services across the country. The passage of WIOA supports the
workforce system in meeting that demand, and the adoption of a national
vision for the one-stop delivery system and its one-stop centers is an
important first step in that work.
VISION FOR THE
ONE-STOP
CENTERS UNDER
WIOA:
The publicly funded workforce system envisioned by WIOA is quality-
focused, employer-driven, customer-centered, and tailored to meet the
needs of regional economies. It is designed to increase access to, and
opportunities for, the employment, education, training, and support
services that individuals need to succeed in the labor market, particularly
those with barriers to employment. It aligns workforce development,
education, and economic development programs with regional economic
development strategies to meet the needs of local and regional employers,
and provide a comprehensive, accessible, and high-quality workforce
development system. This is accomplished by providing all customers
access to high-quality one-stop centers that connect them with the full
range of services available in their communities, whether they are looking
to find jobs, build basic educational or occupational skills, earn a
postsecondary certificate or degree, or obtain guidance on how to make
career choices, or are businesses and employers seeking skilled workers.
Under WIOA, partner programs and entities that are jointly responsible for
workforce and economic development, educational, and other human
resource programs collaborate to create a seamless customer-focused one-
stop delivery system that integrates service delivery across all programs
and enhances access to the programs’ services. The one-stop delivery
system includes six core programs (Title I adult, dislocated worker, and
youth programs; Title II adult education and literacy programs; Title III
Wagner-Peyser program; and Title IV vocational rehabilitation program),
as well as other required and optional partners identified in WIOA.1
1 In addition to the core programs, required partners include the Senior Community Service Employment Program;
job counseling, training, and placement services for veterans authorized under chapter 41 of title 38; career and
technical postsecondary education programs authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006; Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs; employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) employment and
training programs; Unemployment Compensation programs; programs authorized under the Second Chance Act of
2007, Section 212 (reintegration of ex-offenders); and programs authorized under the Social Security Act Title IV,
102
Through the one-stop centers, these partner programs and their
service providers ensure that businesses and job seekers — a
shared client base across the multiple programs identified above —
have access to information and services that lead to positive
employment outcomes.
Under WIOA, one-stop centers and their partners:
provide job seekers with the skills and credentials necessary to
secure and advance in employment with family-sustaining
wages;
provide access and opportunities to all job seekers, including
individuals with barriers to employment, such as individuals
with disabilities, to prepare for, obtain, retain, and advance in
high-quality jobs and high-demand careers;
enable businesses and employers to easily identify and hire
skilled workers and access other supports, including education and training for their current workforce;
participate in rigorous evaluations that support continuous
improvement of one-stop centers by identifying which strategies
work better for different populations;
ensure that high-quality integrated data inform decisions
made by policymakers, employers, and job seekers.
The management of the one-stop delivery system is the shared
responsibility of States, local boards, elected officials, the core
WIOA partners, other required partners, and one-stop center
operators. The Departments encourage all of these entities to
integrate the characteristics below into their work, including
developing state, regional, and local strategic plans; establishing
one-stop center certification criteria; examining the state, regional,
and local footprint of one-stop centers; conducting competitions for
selecting one-stop center operators; developing local Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs); updating other one-stop center policies and
procedures; and operating and delivering services through the one-
stop centers.
Part A (TANF), unless the Governor determines that TANF is not a required partner.
Optional partners may include, with the approval of the local board and chief elected officials, the U.S. Social
Security Administration (SSA) employment and training program (i.e. Ticket to Work programs);
Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and training programs; the Vocational
Rehabilitation Client Assistance Program; National and Community Service Act Programs; and other
employment, education, or training programs such as those operated by libraries or in the private sector.
103
CHARACTERISTICS
OF A
HIGH-QUALITY
ONE-STOP CENTER:
The characteristics identified below, consistent with the purpose and
authorized scope of each of the programs, are designed to reflect
elements that the Departments believe contribute to a high-quality
one-stop delivery system. They demonstrate the spirit and intent of
WIOA, and the Departments believe they will strengthen the
successful integration and implementation of partner programs in one-
stop centers. For clarity and readability the characteristics have been
grouped into three functional categories: (a) Customer Service; (b)
Innovation and Service Design; and
(c) Systems Integration and High-Quality Staffing.
a. One-Stop Centers Provide Excellent Customer Service to Job
Seekers, Workers, and Businesses. Meeting the needs of job
seekers, workers, and businesses is important in developing
thriving communities where all citizens succeed and businesses
prosper. High- quality one-stop centers:
Reflect a welcoming environment to all customer groups who
are served by the one-stop centers. All one-stop center staff are
courteous, polite, responsive, and helpful to job seekers,
businesses, and others who visit the one-stop centers, either in
person or by telephone or email. Moreover, one-stop center staff
are sensitive to the unique needs of individuals with disabilities
and are prepared to provide necessary accommodations.
Develop, offer, and deliver quality business services To support
area employers and industry sectors most effectively, one-stop
center staff identify and have a clear understanding of industry
skill needs, identify appropriate strategies for assisting employers,
and coordinate business services activities across one-stop center
partner programs, as appropriate. This includes the incorporation
of an integrated and aligned business services strategy among one-
stop center partners to present a unified voice for the one-stop
center in its communications with employers. Additionally, one-
stop centers use the forthcoming performance measure(s) on
effectiveness in serving employers to support continuous
improvement of these services.
Improve the skills of job seeker and worker customers. One-
stop centers offer access to education and training leading to industry- recognized credentials through the use of career
pathways,
104
apprenticeships, and other strategies that enable customers, including
those with disabilities, to compete successfully in today’s global
economy. They provide businesses with access to the quantity and
quality of talent they need and support upskill/backfill strategies that
expand job opportunities in the community.
Create opportunities for individuals at all skill levels and levels of
experience by providing customers, including those with disabilities,
as much timely, labor market, job-driven information and choice as possible related to education and training, careers, and service delivery
options, while offering customers the opportunity to receive both skill- development and job placement services.
Provide career services that motivate, support, and empower
customers, including individuals with disabilities, to make informed decisions based on local and regional economic demand and
effectively attain their personal employment and education goals.
Value skill development by assessing and improving each
individual’s basic, occupational, and employability skills.
b. One-Stop Centers Reflect Innovative and Effective Service Design.
High-quality one-stop centers:
Use an integrated and expert intake process for all customers
entering the one-stop centers. Frontline staff are highly familiar with the functions and basic eligibility requirements of each program, and
can appropriately assist customers and make knowledgeable referrals to partner programs, as needed and as appropriate given the authorized
scope of the program.
Design and implement practices that actively engage industry
sectors and use economic and labor market information, sector
strategies, career pathways, Registered Apprenticeships, and competency models to help drive skill-based initiatives.
Balance traditional labor exchange services with strategic talent
development within a regional economy. This includes use of market-driven principles and labor market information that help to
define a regional economy, its demographics, its workforce and its assets and gaps in skills and resources.
Ensure meaningful access to all customers. One-stop centers must
be physically and programmatically accessible to all customers,
including individuals with disabilities. In so doing, one-stop centers
use principles of universal design and human-centered design, such as
105
flexibility in space usage; the use of pictorial, written, verbal, and tactile
modes to present information for customers with disabilities or limited
English proficiency; providing clear lines of sight to information for
seated or standing users; providing necessary accommodations; and
providing adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal
assistants. One-stop centers use assistive technology and flexible business
hours to meet the range of customer needs.
Include both virtual and center-based service delivery for job
seekers, workers, and employers. Both methods of delivery support the
talent needs of the regional economy, although each may better serve
different customers with different levels of service needs at any given
time. The one-stop delivery system can expand its reach by delivering
robust virtual services and increasing the accessibility of those services
through community partners, such as libraries, community and faith-
based organizations, and other partners.
Incorporate innovative and evidence-based delivery models that
improve the integration of education and training, create career pathways
that lead to industry-recognized credentials, encourage work-based
learning, and use state-of-the-art technology to accelerate learning and
promote college and career success.
c. One-Stop Centers Operate with Integrated Management Systems
and High-Quality Staffing. High-quality one-stop centers:
Reflect the establishment of robust partnerships among partners.
The one-stop center operator facilitates an integrated, co-located
partnership that seamlessly incorporates services of the core partners and
other one-stop center partners.
Organize and integrate services by function (rather than by program),
when permitted by a program’s authorizing statute and as appropriate, and
by coordinating staff communication, capacity building, and training
efforts. Functional alignment includes having one-stop center staff who
perform similar tasks serve on relevant functional teams, e.g. Skills
Development Team, Business Services Team. Service integration focuses
on serving all customers seamlessly (including targeted populations) by
providing a full range of services staffed by cross-functional teams,
consistent with the purpose, scope, and requirements of each program.
Develop and maintain integrated case management systems that inform customer service throughout the customer’s interaction with
the integrated system and allow information collected from customers at intake to be captured once. Customer information is properly
secured in accordance with personally identifiable information
106
guidelines, and facilitated as appropriate, with the necessary
memoranda of understanding or other forms of confidentiality and data sharing agreements, consistent with federal and state privacy
laws and regulations. Data, however, would be shared with other programs, for those programs’ purposes, within the one-stop system
only after the informed written consent of the individual has been obtained, where required.
Develop and implement operational policies that reflect an
integrated system of performance, communication, and case
management, and use technology to achieve integration and expanded
service offerings.
Use common performance indicators to ensure that federal
investments in employment and training programs are evidence-based,
labor market driven, and accountable to participants and taxpayers.
Center performance is transparent and accountable to the communities
and regions served; data entry staff are trained and understand the
importance of data validation, data collection processes, and the
importance of accurate reporting.
Train and equip one-stop center staff in an ongoing learning process
with the knowledge, skills, and motivation to provide superior service
to job seekers, including those with disabilities, and businesses in an
integrated, regionally focused framework of service delivery. Center
staff are cross-trained, as appropriate, to increase staff capacity,
expertise, and efficiency. Cross-training allows staff from differing
programs to understand every program and to share their expertise
about the needs of specific populations so that all staff can better serve
all customers. Center staff are routinely trained and are keenly aware
as to how their particular function supports and contributes to the
overall vision of the local board.
Staff the center with highly trained career counselors, skilled in
advising job seekers of their options, knowledgeable about local labor
market dynamics, aware of available services inside and outside the
one-stop center, and skilled in developing customers’ skills for
employment success.
RESOURCES: Along with the resources provided at the WIOA collections page at
http://wioa.workforce3one.org, the following technical assistance tools are
currently available as part of the Departments’ ongoing effort to support
107
state and local areas in the adoption of the vision for the one-stop centers
under WIOA.
a. Provide Excellent Customer Service to Job Seekers, Workers and
Employers.
Opening Doors for Everyone: Providing Outstanding Customer
Service at One-Stop Career Centers: This toolkit is designed to
provide one-stop center staff members an enhanced level of comfort
when providing service to customers with a diverse array of
backgrounds and needs.
https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001501480321360042/info
Expanding Business Engagement: WIOA makes significant changes
to the nation’s workforce development system, expressly incorporating
the sector strategies approach throughout and requiring regional
planning and alignment with local labor market needs for in-demand
sectors and occupations. The Expanding Business Engagement (EBE)
- Technical Assistance (TA) Initiative will support the strategic
planning and implementation of revitalized or enhanced business
engagement activities within states, regions, and local areas.
http://businessengagement.workforce3one.org
b. Reflect Innovative and Effective Service Design.
One-Stop Service Design: The resources section contains a variety of
curated technical assistance tools, best practices, replicable models,
implementation plans, recorded webinars, videos, research documents,
and data reports to support innovative and effective one-stop center
service design.
https://wioa.workforce3one.org/ws/wioa/pages/resources.aspx?pparam
s=1001501462393639983
Legacy Disability Training: Understanding Disability: The purpose of
this introductory course is to provide practical learning experience,
toward acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to provide quality
workforce development services to persons with disabilities.
https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/4011507054815454755/info
c. Integrated Administrative Systems and High-Quality Staffing.
Integrated Service Delivery Toolkit: This toolkit provides ideas,
strategies and resources for integrating service delivery in the public
workforce system.
https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001508963127430705/info
108
Effective Case Management: This site contains resources and tools
designed to help system administrators, local leaders and staff to
support high-quality case management in the workforce system.
https://effectivecasemanagement.workforce3one.org/index.aspx
d. Other One-Stop Vision Technical Assistance Tools.
One-Stop Career Centers Fact Sheet: Provides highlights of WIOA reforms for one-stop centers.
https://wioa.workforce3one.org/view/2001507734890961606/info
Quick Start Action Plan (QSAP) for One-Stop Centers: An
interactive, self-paced assessment tool designed to help leaders at all
levels of the public workforce system prepare for implementation of
WIOA. The QSAP helps identify areas of strength and focused areas
for improvement in a state or local workforce system and connects to
targeted resources that can help leaders to prepare and plan effectively.
http://qsap.workforce3one.org/page/planner/OneStop/Questionnaire
ACTION
REQUESTED:
As WIOA core programs and partners at the State and local level
implement WIOA in program year 2015, the Departments encourage
states to adopt this vision and build it into the policies and procedures
related to the management of the one-stop delivery system. This includes
developing regional, and local strategic plans; establishing certification
criteria for one-stop centers and the one-stop delivery system; examining
the State, regional, and local footprint of one-stop centers; conducting
competitions for selecting one-stop center operators; developing the local
MOU; and updating other one-stop center policies and procedures.
SUMMARY: WIOA increases the accountability of core WIOA programs, including the
VR program, to place emphasis on promoting better alignment among
Federal job training programs. This vision reinforces the partnerships and
strategies necessary for one-stop centers to provide job seekers and
workers with the high-quality career services, education and training, and
supportive services they need to obtain good jobs and stay employed; and
to help businesses find skilled workers and access other supports,
including education and training for their current workforce.
109
INQUIRIES: David Jones
Vocational Rehabilitation Program Unit
(202) 245-7356
/s/
Janet L. LaBreck
Commissioner
Attachment
cc: Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation
National Council of State Agencies for the Blind
National Disability Rights Network
110
Attachment 1 - References for the One-Stop Vision
• WIOA (Pub. L. 113-128);
• WIA (Pub. L. 105-220), Title I;
• TEGL No. 3-14, Implementing a Job-Driven Workforce System, July 30, 2014;
• TEN No. 5-14, WIOA Announcement and Initial Informational Resources, July 22,
2014;
• TEN No. 6-14, Information for Stakeholder Engagement for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Implementation, August 15, 2014;
• TEGL No. 12-14, Allowable Uses and Funding Limits of WIA Program Year 2014
Funds for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Transitional Activities,
October 28, 2014;
• TEGL No. 15-14, Implementation of the New Uniform Guidance Regulations,
December 19, 2014;
• TEGL No. 19-14, Vision for the Workforce System and Initial Implementation of
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act dated February 19, 2015
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=7353; and
• WIOA implementation dates, http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEN/WIOA-
Key- Implementation-Dates_Acc.pdf
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and
Labor. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and
Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System
Joint Provisions. Pages 20573-20687 [FR DOC# 2015-05528] (joint).
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and
Labor. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Pages 20689-20966 [FR DOC#
2015- 05530] (Labor only).
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and
Labor. Programs and Activities Authorized by the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act; (Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act). Pages
20967-20987 [FR DOC# 2015-5540] (Education only).
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and
Labor. State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; State Supported
Employment Services Program; Limitations on Use of Subminimum Wage; Pages
21059-21146 [FR DOC# 2015-05538] (Education only).
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with the Departments of Education and
Labor. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Miscellaneous Program
Changes; Pages 20988-21058 [FR DOC# 2015-05535] (Education only).
111
Appendix I. 2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators
Table 3.
2011, 2012 & 2013 RSA Federal Indicators
2011 2012 2013
State 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed
Alabama 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Alaska 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5
American Samoa 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Arizona 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Arkansas 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
California 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
Colorado 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Connecticut 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Delaware 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
District of
Columbia 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5
Florida 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
Georgia 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3
Guam 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Hawaii 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Idaho 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Illinois 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
Indiana 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Iowa 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Kansas 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
Kentucky 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Louisiana 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Maine 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
112
Table 3 (cont’d)
2011 2012 2013
State 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed
Maryland 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Massachusetts 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5
Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Mississippi 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Missouri 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Montana 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Nebraska 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Nevada 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
New Hampshire 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
New Jersey 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5
New Mexico 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
New York 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5
North Carolina 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3
North Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Northern Marianas 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3
Ohio 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4
Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Oregon 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pennsylvania 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Rhode Island 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 5
South Carolina 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
South Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Tennessee 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
Texas 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
113
Table 3 (cont’d)
2011 2012 2013
State 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Total
Passed
Utah 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Vermont 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Virgin Islands 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4
Virginia 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
Washington 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 5
West Virginia 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5
Wisconsin 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Wyoming 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 5
114
REFERENCES
115
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., Leahy, M. J., Del Valle, R., Sherman, S., & Tansey, T. N. (2014).
Methodological application of multiple case study design using modified consensual
qualitative research (CQR) analysis to identify best practices and organizational factors in
the public rehabilitation program. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 87-98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140709
Atkinson, D. E. (1997, November). Rehabilitation management and leadership competencies.
Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 41(4), 249-261.
Atkinson, D. E., & Bitter, J. A. (1997, November). A curriculum model for the development of
rehabilitation managers and leaders. The Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 21(4),
285-291.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26-40.
Bezyak, J. L., Ososkie, J. N., Trice, A. L., & Yeager, P. (2010, winter). The importance of
counseling supervision in the professional development of public rehabilitation
counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 41(4), 30-35.
Bitter, J. A., & Gay, D. A. (Eds.). (1997). Special issue on rehabilitation leadership development
[Special issue]. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 21(4).
Brown, A. (1992). Organizational culture: The key to effective leadership and organizational
development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 13(13, 2), 3-6.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based on the
competing values framework. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chi, H., Lan, C., & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). The moderating effect of transformational leadership
on knowledge management and organizational effectiveness. Social Behavior and
Personality, 40(6), 1015-1024.
Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation. (2013). Investing in America
[Press release]. Rockville, Maryland: CSAVR.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
116
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Daniels, R. P. (1997, November). Rehabilitation leadership in the information age. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 21(4), 243-247.
De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
Del Valle, R., Leahy, M. J., Sherman, S., Anderson, C. A., Tansey, T., & Schoen, B. (2014).
Promising best practices that lead to employment in vocational rehabilitation: Findings
from a four-state multiple case study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 99-
113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140708
Dennison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a
theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5),
524-540.
Dorrer, J. (2001, July). Workforce development program consolidation and service integration.
Switzer Seminar Series- Emerging Workforce Issues: W.I.A., Ticket to Work, and
Partnerships, 17-29.
Ford, L. H. (1997, November). Measuring rehabilitation management and leadership
competencies. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 21(4), 263-272.
Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A.
(2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural
values. Business Psychology, 24, 123-137.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers, an introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Golden, T. P., Bruyere, S. M., Karpur, A., Nazarov, Z., & VanLooy, S. (2012). Workforce
development policy: Unrealized potential for Americans with disabilities. Rehabilitation
Education, 26(1), 55-18.
Harkin, T. (2012, July). Unfinished business: Making employment of people with disabilities a
national priority. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Henry, G. T. (1990). Practical sampling. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Herbert, J. T. (2004). Analysis of clinical supervision practices as documented in rehabilitation
counseling syllabi and fieldwork manuals. Rehabilitation Education, 18(1), 13-33.
117
Herbert, J. T., & Trusty, J. (2006, winter). Clinical supervision practices and satisfaction within
the public vocational rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49(2),
66-80.
Hooijberg, R. (1996). A multidirectional approach towards leadership: An extension of the
concept of behavioral complexity. Human Relations, 49 (7), 917-947.
Institute on Rehabilitation Issues. (2005). Leading and managing change in public vocational
rehabilitation (31st ed.). Hot Springs, AR: University of Arkansas Currents.
Latta, J. (1981, May). Toward a more effective management philosophy. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 5(2), 51-57.
Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., & Lui, J. (2014). Evidence-based best practices in the public vocational
rehabilitation program that lead to employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 41(2), 83-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140704
Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., Lui, J., Rosenthal, D., Tansey, T., Wehman, P., ... Menz, F. E. (2014). An
analysis of evidence-based practices in the public vocational rehabilitation: Gaps, future
directions, and recommended steps to move forward. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 41(2), 147-163.
Leahy, M. J., Muenzen, P., Saunders, J. L., & Strauser, D. (2009). Essential knowledge domains
underlying effective rehabilitation counseling practice. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 52(2), 95-106.
Leahy, M. J., Thielsen, V. A., Millington, M. J., Austin, B., & Fleming, A. (2009). Quality
assurance and program evaluation: Terms, models and applications in rehabilitation
administration. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 33(2), 69-82.
Lincoln, S. (2010). From the individual to the world: How the competing values framework can
help organizations improve global strategic performance. Emerging Leadership Journeys,
4(1), 3-9.
Lui, J., Anderson, C. A., Matthews, P., Nierenhausen, E., & Schlegelmilch, A. (2014).
Knowledge translation strategies to improve the resources for rehabilitation counselors to
employ best practices in the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 137-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140706
McFarlane, F. R., Schroeder, F. K., & Enriquez, M. (2014). How should we shape future public
policies and services with people with disabilities? San Diego, CA: Interwork Institute.
McFarlane, F. R., Schroeder, F. K., Enriquez, M., & Dew, D. (2011). Journal of Rehabilitation,
77(4), 4-12.
118
McMahon, B. T., & Chan, F. (2011). Current and future challenges in vocational rehabilitation.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 189-191.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformational learning.
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Millington, M. J., & Schultz, J. C. (2009). The challenge of organizational culture in quality
assurance implementation. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 33(2), 121-129.
O’Brien, M., & Graham, M. (2009, January). Rehabilitation counseling in the state or federal
program, Is there a future? Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 52(2), 124-128.
Packard, T. (2009). Leadership and performance in human services organizations. In R. J. Patti
(Ed.), The handbook of human services management (pp. 143-164). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Patterson, J. B., Bruyere, S., Szymanski, E. M., & Jenkins, W. (Eds.). (2005). Philosophical,
historical, and legislative aspects of the rehabilitation counseling profession.
Rehabilitation Counseling: Basics and Beyond.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pruett, S. R., Swett, E. A., Chan, F., & Lee, D. K. (2008, April-June). Empirical evidence
supporting the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 74,
56-63.
Quinn, R. E. (1984). Applying the competing values approach to leadership: Towards an
integrative framework. In J. G. Hunt, D. M. Hosking, C. A. Schriesheim, & R. Stewart
(Eds.). Leaders and managers: International perspectives on managerial behavior and
leadership (pp. 10-27). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a
competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363-
377.
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics. (2013).
2013 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium. West Orange, NJ: National Institute on
Disability and Related Research.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (1990, Summer). The Americans with disabilities act of
1990. American Rehabilitation, 2-9.
119
Rijal, S. (2010). Leadership style and organizational culture in learning organization: A
comparative study. International Journal of Management and Information Systems,
14(14, 5), 119-127.
Rubin, S. E., & Roessler, R. T. (2008). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (6th
ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Rusalem, H., & Malikin, D. (1976). Contemporary vocational rehabilitation. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Saleh, M. A. (1991, November). Changes and challenges: The quest for leadership in
rehabilitation for the 21st century. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 211-213.
Sanz-Valle, R., Naranjo-Valencia, J. C., Jimenez-Jimenez, D., & Perez-Caballero, L. (2011).
Linking organizational learning with technical innovation and organizational culture.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 997-1015.
Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management
Review, 3-16.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22, 40-51.
Schein, E. H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. Retrieved from
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html
Schraeder, M., Tears, R. S., & Jordan, M. H. (2005). Organizational culture in public sector
organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(5/6), 492-502.
Schroeder, F. (2014, September 4). WIOA-section by section [online]. Retrieved from
NCSAB.org
Schroeder, F. (2014). WIOA analysis [Electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from
NCSAB.org
Schultz, J. C. (2007). Addressing national concerns through supervision: The role of the
rehabilitation agency supervisor. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 38(4),
11-18.
Schultz, J. C. (2008, spring). The tripartite model of supervision for rehabilitation counselors.
Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 39(1), 36-41.
Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
120
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline
fieldbook. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (2006). Continuous learning: Individual, group, and organizational
perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shahzad, F., Luqman, R. A., Khan, A. R., & Shabbir, L. (2012). Impact of organizational culture
on organizational performance: An overview. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, 3(9), 975-985.
Shaw, K. J. (1997, November). Future directions for rehabilitation leadership. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 21(4), 293-298.
Shaw, L. R., Leahy, M. J., Chan, F., & Catalano, D. (2006). Contemporary issues facing
rehabilitation counseling: A Delphi study of the perspectives of leaders of the discipline.
Rehabilitation Education, 20, 163-178.
Sherman, S. G., Leahy, M. J., Del Valle, R., Anderson, C. A., Tansey, T. N., & Lui, K. (2014).
Organizational and cultural factors that promote creative best practices in the public
rehabilitation program: Findings from a four-state multiple case study. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 115-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140710
Simon, S. E. (1991, November). Training rehabilitation administrators. Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 209-210.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership:
A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,
25(3/4), 349-361.
Tansey, T. N., Bezyak, J., Chan, F., Leahy, M. J., & Lui, J. (2014). Social-cognitive predictors of
readiness to use evidence-based practice: A survey of state vocational rehabilitation
counselors. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 41(2), 127-136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140705
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Mixed methods in social and behavioral research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Technical Assistance Circular RSA-TAC-15-01, U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration.
(2015).
Tuft, K. A. (2012). A research study of transformational leadership comparing leadership styles
of the principal (Doctoral dissertation).
http://www.duq.edu/documents/education/_pdf/DEFL/dissertation/20120309-luft.pdf
121
Warrick, D. D. (2011). The urgent need for skilled transformational leaders: Integrating
transformational leadership and organization development. Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics, 8(5), 11-26.
Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act, H.R. Res. 803, 113-2 Cong., U.S. Government
Printing Office 1 (2014) (enacted).
Wright, G. N. (1980). Total Rehabilitation. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Yang, F., Wu, M., Chang, C., & Chien, Y. (2011). Elucidating the relationships among
transformational leadership, job satisfaction, commitment foci and commitment bases in
the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 40(3), 265-277. http://dx.doi.org/
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.